Debates of April 14th, 2026

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

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

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 15 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from December 3, 2025, consideration of the motion.

Conservation Donations

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Motion No. 15, moved by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi and which I am pleased to co-sponsor, calling on the government to examine ways of improving tax incentives for ecological gifts and to establish tax parity between in-kind donations of land and monetary donations to conservation organizations.

There is a very important principle behind this motion, that of empowering people to protect nature. That is important because Canada has a lot of natural capital. Our country is home to 20% of the world's freshwater reserves, 37% of the world's lakes, 25% of the world's wetlands and 24% of the world's boreal forests. We also have one of the longest coastlines and one of the largest maritime territories in the world. Our natural habitats are home to approximately 80,000 species.

Canada has committed to protecting 30% of our land and oceans by 2030. This commitment is part of the global biodiversity framework adopted in Montreal in 2022 and represents one of the most ambitious environmental objectives of our time. To meet it, we must adopt a whole-of-society approach based on innovation and close co-operation. That includes the participation of indigenous peoples, several federal departments and agencies, all levels of government, industry, environmental organizations, philanthropic organizations and private landowners.

This objective does not depend solely on the government. The reality across Canada is clear: A large proportion of the natural habitats with the greatest biodiversity is found on private land. Whether it be forests, wetlands, rivers or natural grasslands, a significant proportion of these ecosystems belongs to citizens, families, farmers and businesses. In other words, the success our our national commitment also depends on the willing participation of these landowners. That is precisely where ecological gifts come into play.

Through the ecological gifts program, landowners can donate land or a conservation easement to a recognized organization to ensure that the natural environment is permanently protected. In return, they receive a tax benefit that recognizes the value of this gesture. This program is one of the most effective conservation tools available to Canada. Since 2007, it has helped protect over 800,000 hectares of natural areas across the country, an area comparable to the size of Prince Edward Island. These lands include old-growth forests, essential habitats for species at risk, wetlands that filter water and natural landscapes that shape the identity of many communities across the country. With the help of this program, every hectare protected helps to preserve our natural heritage and safeguard our collective future, because natural ecosystems play a role in filtering our water and purifying our air. They store carbon and help mitigate climate change. Our natural ecosystems also support pollination, which is essential to food production, and they reduce the risk of floods and droughts.

The positive impacts of natural ecosystems are estimated to be worth more than $30 billion annually in Canada, representing an immense asset to our society. Protecting natural environments is therefore not just an environmental issue. It is also a smart economic decision. Nature-based solutions, such as protecting forests, wetlands and watersheds, are among the most effective and cost-effective ways to strengthen our communities' resilience to climate change. Investments in ecological restoration also generate significant economic benefits. In other words, protecting nature is not a barrier to development, but rather an investment in a sustainable future.

Ecological gifts are a perfect example of this logic. When a landowner decides to make an ecological gift, they voluntarily give up a significant portion of the market value of their property so that the land can be protected in perpetuity.

This turns a private asset into a public asset. It does so without the government having to purchase the land or immediately assume the costs of acquiring it. It is a great example of collaboration among citizens, conservation organizations and governments.

However, for this model to work, it must be adequately supported. Today, while the ecological gifts program remains an exemplary tool, many aspects of the tax framework have not been modernized in over two decades. Motion No. 15 therefore poses a simple but essential question: How can we adapt our tax incentives to encourage more Canadians to participate in this collective effort?

The first part of this question has to do with land donations themselves. For example, enhancing tax credits for ecological gifts could encourage more landowners to take that next step and speed up the creation of protected areas on private lands.

The motion also highlights another issue, which is the funding of conservation organizations. These organizations play a key role in protecting natural environments. They conduct biological inventories, manage sites, conduct ecological restoration and ensure long-term monitoring of protected lands. In other words, they turn a gift of land into a true, sustainable conservation project. Their work relies heavily on private and philanthropic contributions.

Monetary donations are used to fund essential activities like scientific studies, legal fees, conservation easement acquisitions, habitat restoration, ecological monitoring and community engagement. Without these resources, effectively protecting and managing donated land becomes much more difficult.

Today, however, tax incentives for monetary donations to support conservation are still relatively limited. Motion No. 15 proposes to examine the possibility of instituting tax parity between land donations and monetary donations made to conservation organizations. This idea is based on a recognition that these two types of contribution are complementary. Land donations help protect natural environments, while monetary donations help ensure that these environments are protected and managed over the long term. Each depends on the other to fully function.

Creating tax parity between these two forms of philanthropy would strengthen Canada's entire voluntary conservation system, with potentially significant benefits. National analyses show that every dollar invested in conservation can generate considerably more in economic, social and environmental benefits. For some conservation programs, one government dollar is estimated to attract at least one dollar of private funds, thereby creating a significant leverage effect. Supporting environmental philanthropy is therefore one example of a highly profitable public investment that we can make.

It is also important to note that ecological gifts are not limited to large estates. Many donations come from rural families, farmers, or citizens who wish to protect a wooded area, a marsh, or a lake that is part of their family history. These landowners are not seeking a financial benefit. They wish to leave a legacy. The tax credit is therefore not a gift. It simply recognizes the actual loss of asset value incurred by the donor when they choose to protect land rather than sell or develop it. The true beneficiaries of these donations are all of the members of our communities.

As I mentioned, protected lands have significant environmental benefits, particularly in terms of drinking water filtration. They support biodiversity, mitigate the effects of climate change and provide natural spaces that contribute to the quality of life in communities. These contributions represent collective benefits that extend far beyond the land itself. Motion No. 15 aims to better recognize this contribution.

By supporting this motion, we are not merely creating a tax mechanism. We are sending a clear message: that voluntary conservation is an integral part of the solution for protecting biodiversity in Canada.

We also recognize the vital role played by citizens, conservation organizations, local communities and indigenous peoples in protecting the land. The green transition cannot be carried out by governments alone. It must be the result of a collective effort. That is precisely what my colleague's motion proposes. It calls on us to strengthen a model that is already working, a model based on generosity, collaboration and shared responsibility for our natural heritage.

I want to emphasize that protecting nature is not a luxury. It is a necessity for the health of our ecosystems, the resilience of our communities and the well-being of future generations. Every protected forest, every protected river and every restored wetland is an investment in our future. Every act of voluntary conservation deserves to be recognized and encouraged.

With Motion No. 15, we have an opportunity to strengthen these actions. It proposes a pragmatic, balanced and effective approach to accelerate the protection of natural environments in Canada.

For all these reasons, I invite my colleagues to support this motion. Protecting nature means protecting our future. The decisions we make today will shape the land we leave for future generations.

In closing, I want to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his leadership on this file.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is Motion No. 15? It is a non-binding motion brought forward by one of our new colleagues, a Liberal here in the House of Commons. Its purpose is to create a discussion and take a vote on a very specific proposal to make the donation of cash to conservation or preservation organizations be treated in the tax code the same as the donation of land.

In the preamble of the motion, we read, “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”. Well, that sounds good, but here is the stumbling point. The House has never voted to approve the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda that Canada signed on to at COP15 on the Convention on Biological Diversity. In the previous Parliament, the minister of environment, who has since resigned due to the MOU signed between Canada and Alberta, tried to table a bill to give the government a mechanism to implement the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda. The bill never passed; there was no vote. The government simply signed on and has begun implementation without consulting all Canadians or the House.

The Liberals are doing so through the Fisheries Act powers, through the creation of national parks and through agreements with first nations on indigenous protected and conserved areas. The government has already signed on to agreements or has begun negotiations for over 60 of these indigenous protected and conserved areas, and we do not know what is in them. I asked, through an access to information request, and I only received four agreements that have been signed by the government. I asked for these two years ago. The Liberals had 30 days to get back to me, and they have not done so on over 50 of these agreements.

We are seeing a trend in Canada where the government and first nations negotiate among themselves and then announcements are dropped on the public, causing confusion and uncertainty. Now even the question of private property ownership in British Columbia is in doubt.

What is the agenda? For those who are listening at home, many have never heard of this. The Liberals' goal is to preserve 30% of the terrestrial and marine environments of Canada by the year 2030 and 50% by the 2050. The rationale is to ensure habitat protection to maintain biological diversity. It is not just a random 30% of Canada or 50% of Canada, but 30% of each ecological zone in Canada, which means 30% of our mountainous areas, 30% of the Canadian Shield, 30% of prairie grasslands, 30% of the parkland forest, 30% of the boreal forest and so on.

Much of these areas have significant portions of the land as privately owned property. The government needs a mechanism to turn this privately owned land into recognizable conservation land in protected areas. As well, because the Convention on Biological Biodiversity sets the standards of what it means to meet a conservation or preservation threshold, it will require private landowners to either sell their land or put easements or conservation overlays on that land, which would severely restrict what types of activities are allowed to happen on that private land.

The mechanism to donate this land already exists. The motion seeks to make the donation of money to this cause be treated equally under Canadian tax law, which is meant to be a driver of this agenda. Furthermore, the government is using this non-binding motion to implement its global central-banker-backed philosophy. The definition, for those who do not know how this works, is that for the 30-30 initiative, a protected area is a geographically defined space managed legally or effectively to achieve long-term biodiversity conservation. This includes formal national and provincial parks, marine protected areas, indigenous protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, such as wildlife corridors or sustainable management zones.

I want to focus on this for a minute, because it is these other effective area-based conservation measures that this motion is specifically speaking to. This is largely how private land can become protected and count towards the 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050.

There are excellent organizations in Canada doing good work. Ducks Unlimited uses a model of conservation easements where willing landowners put restrictive covenants on their properties in exchange for cash. These easements survive change in title so that when someone buys land with an easement on it, they honour the easement. Once an easement is in place however, it does severely restrict what the landowner is allowed to do. For example, if one were going to do any development on that land, such as building a pipeline on it, the pipeline company would need the blessing of both the landowner and the holder of the conservation easement. We can see where this gets really complicated really fast. Furthermore, each easement is an individual agreement between the landowner and the holder of the easement. They are not all the same, so if one is managing a large construction project that is spanning several different easements, each one of them is written differently.

The Nature Conservancy of Canada focuses more on purchasing land and will allow the continuation of farming and certain agricultural practices, but as the landholder and title holder, they would ultimately be able to decide if any other types of economic activity would be allowed to proceed on this conservation-designated land.

Both organizations, I know, are well intended. As a hunter, I appreciate that I can usually access these conservation areas, although it usually comes with more restrictions than accessing private land or Crown land.

Who is driving and helping with this agenda? The United Nations Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in December 2022, establishes four goals and 23 targets for 2030 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

The core target includes 30 by 30, commitments to restore 30% of degraded ecosystems and halt human-induced species extinction. Financial reforms include reducing harmful subsidies by $500 billion annually and mobilizing $200 billion a year in biodiversity funding.

Emphasis is placed on indigenous rights, stewardship and integration of traditional knowledge. This means that the indigenous-protected conservation areas will rely on traditional knowledge rather than science-based management of species. This is in contravention, generally speaking, of the North American model of wildlife management, which creates confusion for wildlife managers.

Targets to reduce pesticide risks and pollution, as well as to cut food waste by 50% is another goal, as is the framework for fair benefits sharing from digital sequence information, such as the genetic resources that we are looking to protect and preserve.

What role does the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have in this? It acts as a facilitator and a coalition builder, supporting the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda; aligns private sector capital; and develops financial models and brings political and business leaders together to advance the implementation of this agenda.

The global financial sector and banking sector have a role in this as well. Banks are a key capital allocator supporting the 30 by 30 goal. An estimated $1.2 trillion is annually needed from private sector investment in order to achieve their outcomes, addressing an estimated $700-billion annual biodiversity funding gap.

Key roles for banks involve mobilizing private capital through blended finance and green bonds, shifting portfolios away from nature-negative sectors such as defunding oil and gas and other types of economic development, and developing new financial instruments, adopting the nature-related risk disclosure framework and promoting sustainable practices, which Canada already does in agriculture, forestry and fisheries.

What would Conservatives do differently? I think Canadians would be surprised to know that, currently, 89% of Canada is Crown land and 100% of our water is managed under the direction of the government. Nobody owns a single square inch of the surface of water in Canada. If the management of our Crown land has sustainable development frameworks underpinning it, and it does, and if the Government of Canada, which is responsible for all our oceans, were properly managing them, then one could easily say that Canada has already met this conservation agenda.

Nothing happens on Crown land without permission from a provincial, territorial or federal government. No activity is allowed to happen on the ocean without permission granted by the Government of Canada. No activity is allowed to happen on any lake or river without the consent of a province or territory. These are all governments that all Canadians are allowed to vote for. For the remaining 11% of land, which is privately owned, 7% of it is zoned agricultural, meaning that only agricultural activity is permitted on these lands.

In fact when it comes to the environment, farmers and ranchers are some of the best stewards of the land, because it is in their own best interests to ensure the integrity of the land and the ecosystem. The land of a farmer is valuable only if it can continue to grow a crop and if it continues to yield forage or pasture for livestock, which means that this land is also very valuable for wildlife. Anybody with any hunting experience would know that pasture land is some of the most prized hunting land a hunter can access. Marginal land with trees and natural systems acting as connected corridors weaving through highly productive farmland and forage land creates an abundance of ungulates, migratory birds, upland game birds and even some apex predators.

That leaves 4% of the land mass of Canada available for building roads, cities, towns and the human ecosystem. Why are land and building houses so expensive in Canada? It is because we restrict access to our own land. Fourteen million people are allowed to access only about 4% of the land for purchase, building houses and development.

Now the government, through the motion, would be enabling further restrictions on the 7% of farmland that is currently zoned agricultural. This would create more barriers, preventing economic activity that is necessary to keep our country working for all Canadians. Drawing circles and lines around 30%, and eventually 50%, of Canada and locking it in place for all time simply makes no sense.

I will give an example. In its desire to help the southern resident killer whales on the west coast of Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has created massive exclusion zones for fishing and other activities. The whales are rarely in these areas, because they are migratory creatures. Permanent closures and permanent restrictions are of little to no use at all in the protection of these whales. While they serve the purpose of a box-checking exercise, it is very easy to question whether the desired result of balancing ecological integrity with economic activity is what the government is actually doing.

The Liberals say they can protect the environment and protect the economy at the same time, but the results of their actions say something completely different. Conservatives would gladly partner with organizations to aid in conservation and the recovery of endangered and at-risk species, with the understanding that if a necessary economic activity needs to happen, then everybody involved is consulted and the decision is made transparently.

It is because of these and a plethora of other examples that Conservatives cannot, in good faith, support the agenda that the government currently has because we know that this agenda will overly restrict human activity and economic activity, as well as create friction in the socio-economic fabric of our country.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure and interest this evening to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, who is also my riding neighbour. We met at a different point in our lives when he was mayor of Bromont. We have known each other for some years. This is a very good motion and we are going to talk about it. The Bloc Québécois supports Motion No. 15, which is a strategic recognition.

I want to commend the conservation organizations for being vital partners in this type of motion. The member and I share a number of environmental organizations in our ridings, including the Fondation SÉTHY, or the Fondation pour la sauvegarde des écosystèmes du territoire de la Haute‑Yamaska, and REHY, or the Regroupement environnement Haute‑Yamaska, which is made up of organizations with some connection to Brome—Missisquoi. REHY and especially the Fondation SÉTHY are working very hard on the conservation issue. I applaud them for being truly vital partners in conserving our land.

Let us come back to the motion. Of course, tax incentives are a great idea because the government cannot simply rely on the generosity of the private sector. The government also has to do its part. It cannot simply leave this to the private sector. We need to protect biodiversity, but that is not just an option. It is a collective responsibility. It is clear that there are various stakeholders who can play a part in protecting this biodiversity.

It is rather intimidating to speak to this motion when my colleague from Repentigny does such a great job as our environment critic. We have discussed this issue, and he would be better suited to talking about it than I am. There really is a sense of urgency. What we want to do in the House is elevate the debate and talk about the major biodiversity crisis, which is on par with the climate crisis. We must not forget that. We talk a lot about climate change, but the biodiversity crisis is also important.

Here are some key figures. There are one million species that are at risk and 75% of terrestrial habitats have been altered. These figures are based on international data. We want to take meaningful action and talk about food and drinking water supply. Biodiversity also has an impact on health. We do not talk about that enough. Without biodiversity, the conditions necessary for life simply cease to exist.

Finally, we want to remind everyone that the government has made commitments. The government pledged to protect 25% of the country's lands by 2025 and 30% by 2030. It is worth noting that we are currently at approximately 13.8% for land protection and 15.5% for marine protection. There have been repeated delays and sometimes a lack of consistency. The government announces ambitious targets, but does not always give itself the resources needed to meet them.

What we want is to send a clear message that the federal government must do its part. In Quebec, 17% of the territory is protected. Quebec is already taking action. We also want to emphasize that protecting the territory falls under Quebec’s jurisdiction. It is clear that Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to act and that it must be able to continue doing so based on its own priorities. That is important.

I have mentioned that the federal government has a part to play and that Quebec is doing its bit. Now, I would like to highlight some organizations that are working really hard, and I want to acknowledge that they are key players in this fight to protect our land and sea. These organizations have practical, on-the-ground expertise. With the Fondation SÉTHY, I actually had the chance to go into a bog in Saint-Joachim-de-Shefford and talk about biodiversity. I even got to vacuum up spiders. It was a fascinating experience to witness the richness and diversity of our region's peatlands and to observe and catalogue the species of spiders. It provided a very interesting insight into the environment.

I tip my hat to these organizations for their in-depth knowledge of the field. Their work is complex, involving legal, scientific and financial aspects. Having met with representatives of these organizations on numerous occasions, I can say that one of their problems is the lack of recurring funding to help them fulfill their mandate. Among the recommended priorities is the renewal of the natural heritage conservation program, or NHCP. There is also talk of conservation investment funds and improving ecological grants. These organizations are the ones who are actually protecting the land, day in, day out.

Land donations provide better tax advantages than monetary donations. Motion No. 15 addresses this imbalance. The solution it proposes is tax parity, which would result in more stable funding and a larger number of projects. People want to donate to protect nature and that should be encouraged, regardless of the form the donation takes.

I also want to point out that protecting natural environments helps to improve quality of life, provides access to nature and ensures that the land is protected. Access to nature is proven to have a direct impact on both physical and psychological health. There is a connection between protecting natural environments and the growth of our regions, particularly for the local communities that depend on these wonderful areas for their livelihood. Protecting biodiversity means protecting our living environments.

We are really talking about chronic underfunding. The government has made announcements recently, but I still want to remind the House that only 3% of projects receive support. According to a letter I received from a coalition of organizations, that translates into 31 out of 980 projects. That means only 10% of the land is being protected and receiving funding.

The problem is not a lack of projects. It is a lack of federal funding. As I said earlier, we are in the midst of consultations. The federal government has its part to play. Quebec is fulfilling its responsibilities and organizations on the ground need to be supported. The organizations are ready, the projects exist and communities are prepared to do the work, but Ottawa is not always doing what it needs to.

The strategic impact we are hoping to achieve is to show that the current system is not operating at full capacity. This justifies the need to go further than Motion No. 15, even though it is a very good start. We want to put forward meaningful, credible solutions for long-term funding.

The proposals include creating a $150-million investment fund for conservation in Canada. We are talking about endowment-type funding, long-term support for land management to make long-term planning and maintenance possible. Ad hoc funding and unproductive announcements are critical issues that need to be addressed because protecting land is not a single act. It is a commitment for generations to come.

This has an impact in our ridings. It is highly relevant to strengthening political roots, given that there are 150 conservation organizations, over 13,000 volunteers and more than 250,000 hectares of protected land. There is a tangible presence in our ridings and a direct impact on local communities. Behind every conservation project, there are citizens, volunteers and organizations deeply rooted in our communities. I would like to commend Martine and her team at Fondation SÉTHY.

The landscapes of southern Quebec are often overlooked, yet over 80% of the population lives there. These areas are rich in biodiversity, but they are also under pressure, with species in need of protection. This creates conflicts between economic development and conservation. An integrated approach is needed. The places where people live are exactly where we need to be working and developing the economy, since there is more pressure on biodiversity in those areas.

We must restore access to nature. It is a social and health issue, as I mentioned earlier. Doctors are now prescribing nature baths and forest bathing. It promotes physical and mental well-being, yet access to nature, be it lakes or mountains, is becoming increasingly limited. We must protect nature, but also ensure people have access to it close to home.

Finally, we need to develop a comprehensive approach and tailor programs to indigenous communities. I want to emphasize that. We also need to facilitate conservation on agricultural land. Farmers keep telling us that they want to be part of the solution when it comes to protecting the land. They do not always want to be blamed. We need to continue working with them and facilitating the conservation of these agricultural lands.

The federal approach needs to be more consistent, since it is sometimes ineffective. We need to work on that. This motion will help, because the solutions must be tailored to local realities, particularly those of indigenous communities and the farming sector. We have lakes, mountains and land to protect. This is essential for future generations. We will work to get this motion adopted.

I want to once again congratulate my neighbour and colleague from Brome—Missisquoi.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all those watching out there in Canada. I am glad to have them watching us tonight.

Really, Motion M-15 is about the Liberal commitment to the 30 by 30 agenda, the ever-growing commitment, as it grows to 50 by 50, which is half of our land mass and waters in Canada. There is also the commitment to funding the groups that promote this agenda. This agenda threatens public access to large tracts of land and waterways that have previously been utilized for hunting, fishing and resource development. This motion would ensure more loss of public access.

Despite the Liberals trying to give us the impression that this is about conservation, it is really about protection. For the audience out there, I asked a group just last week at UVIC what the difference is between protection and conservation. Conservation is the principle that we will conserve things so we can use them. An example would be some people I know very well, our salmon fishermen and fisherwomen, who go on weekends to clean up garbage along the river and the streams, all to promote those salmon spawning again. That is, again, conservation so it can be used.

Protection is completely different. This group is proposing to support more protection, and it is really building fences around areas in the country and really preventing accessing from what used to be public land. I am going to quote the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who spoke on this earlier. He said that this debate is not simply about conservation policy. It is about who makes decisions over Canada's land, resources and economic future, whether those decisions are made here in Canada by elected representatives accountable to Canadians or whether they are increasingly shaped by international frameworks and targets negotiated outside this country's democratic institutions.

I will speak first-hand because I have a couple of personal examples. It all really started around PNCIMA, which is the Pacific north coast integrated management area, where I was first exposed to MPAs, as they are called. Where it really hit home for me was the caribou closures that happened in my riding. It started with a meeting with the mayor and council in Chetwynd. They said that they were worried that, if these caribou closures really took hold, we would lose mills and we would possibly lose coal mines in the area. They were very concerned about what this closure would do to access to resources.

Well, the closures came to fruition, despite community outcry and many community meetings saying this would be devastating for coal development, snowmobiling, hiking in the backwoods, skiing, etc. The government, despite all our recommendations, proceeded to go forward with this closure policy. We have since lost two mills in Chetwynd. We have lost access to snowmobiling in the Rocky Mountains, where people from Chetwynd go to recreate and people in the Peace region go to recreate. We saw this land closure do exactly as we had predicted with the loss of public access to previously accessible lands and waters.

Another example is the bluffs of Pender, which are off Victoria. We met people who fish in Victoria and they have little boat businesses. This contributes about $1.3 billion to the provincial GDP. In this one really key area just outside of Victoria where people fish, the closure was proposed for the protection of the southern resident killer whales. Well, the southern resident killer whales are only in that particular area for five to seven days per year, yet they are going to close down the entire area for the entire year. These closures have not gotten smaller, even though the southern resident killer whale population and the other killer whale populations have done very well and are very healthy. The MPAs, or the marine protected areas, keep expanding all because of this 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda.

I will speak to another example that just happened recently, and this is under the current Prime Minister's watch. It is a closure that is happening and has been implemented in Northwest Territories. I will just read the article, and this is an American article. Again, another highlight for us in this particular issue is that it is not just Canadians talking about these protections. It has actually had a lot of foreign influence, which has really shut down access to those public lands. The headline reads, “Pew and Partners Celebrate Unprecedented Indigenous-Led...”.

It is not really indigenous-led. It was an initiative led by these other groups, and they got eventual buy-in from indigenous groups. I will read from the article again. It states:

Pew and Partners Celebrate Unprecedented Indigenous-Led Initiative to Protect Northwest Territories

WASHINGTON—.... The agreement, initially funded through an investment of CAD$375 million (approximately USD$270 million) in public and private financing....

The initiative will protect [not conserve] a vast area of intact forests, rugged mountain chains, and wetlands, lakes, and rivers, resulting in a significant contribution to Canada’s pledge to protect 30% of its lands and waters by 2030.

Again, protection is putting a big fence around a large area of potentially resource-rich territory in the Northwest Territories. The article continues:

Private donors will match the government on a 1-to-4 basis, contributing CAD$75 million over a 10-year period.

Guess where that money is coming from? The article says it is coming from the Pew foundation, so the international donors, of which there are not many, include the Pew Charitable Trust.

Here we have this foreign influence that really threatens access to the public not only to fish and hunt but also to mine. We know we are already struggling to have mining in Northwest Territories. The last mine is about to close at the end of 2026, and here we have another impediment to future development.

I will just read this in terms of scale. When we say the scale of 30% and 50% and those kinds of things, what does that actually mean? This is a quote from an article in The Canadian Press about the size of 25 by 25 and then what 30 by 30 will mean in a tangible way. It states:

To hit “25 by 25,” Canada must further protect more than 1.2 million square kilometres of land, or approximately the size of Manitoba and Saskatchewan added together [a massive amount of territory]. To get to 30 per cent is to add, on top of that, land almost equivalent in size to Alberta.

It is massive. It continues:

The federal government would need to protect another 638,000 square kilometres of marine territory and coastlines by 2025, or an area almost three times the size of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. By 2030, another area the size of the gulf would need to be added.

Therefore, here we are, influenced by foreign non-governmental environmental organizations about closing key areas that we could formerly access publicly to fish, hunt and develop our resources, all shut down by these groups.

I met Crawford Patkotak. He is an Alaskan Inuit leader and he spoke to us about this very issue. Listen to his approach to these radical environmental groups:

Environmental groups, animal rights groups, these are the same organizations that come into our communities and try to split us all apart, split all the corporations, the tribes, the governments because they have an agenda [it is called the “30 by 30” agenda] and if they had their agenda we wouldn’t be able to hunt today. If they had their agenda, we wouldn’t be able to develop the oil we have in the ground. That would cripple us economically.

He said that they told these groups to get lost. I would say that is an example of an indigenous leader who knows exactly the benefit of having access to be able to fish, hunt and develop their resources.

Therefore, Motion No. 15, while well-intentioned perhaps, would really set the stage to have a lot more closures and protections in Canada, and 30 by 30 is already causing Canadians to lose access to our beloved fishing, hunting, areas of recreation and other examples I have laid out tonight. That, I simply cannot support.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening to my colleague's Motion No. 15. Before going any further, I want to address the many inaccuracies and falsehoods uttered by the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. In fact, I do not believe that a single thing he said in his speech would stand up to fact-checking, but I will come back to that.

I want to start by talking about where we began. When the Liberal government was elected in 2015, Canada was not protecting even 1% of its coastal areas and oceans, which are necessary, especially for our essential fishing sector. Today, nearly 16% of our marine areas and 14% of our land areas are protected, all within the past 10 years. How did we get there? One way was to make historic investments of almost $16 billion in a host of conservation initiatives that my colleague across the way seems utterly unable to comprehend.

I am going to give a few examples of the falsehoods he mentioned earlier. He said we were putting up a glass cage, a fence around these areas. Take for example the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park, an area co-managed by the federal government and the Government of Quebec. There is endless fishing in that park. There is commercial shipping and tourism in that area. There are plenty of commercial activities, but all of that is done first and foremost with conservation in mind. When my colleague across the way says that we are going to put a glass dome and a fence around all of that, he clearly does not know what he is talking about.

We have invested $16 billion over the past 10 years. Of course, we heard the Prime Minister and some of my colleagues announce a historic investment of nearly $4 billion a few weeks ago, as part of the strategy called “A Force of Nature: Canada's Strategy to Protect Nature”. I would like to take a moment to talk a bit about what this means and what we have done so far. We have committed to creating new national parks. Last summer saw record visitor numbers. When my colleague says that this is preventing Canadians from accessing nature, that is completely false, once again, because last summer, record numbers of people visited our national parks.

More and more Canadians want access to green spaces and to natural environments in Canada that are protected from unchecked industrial development. That is exactly what we are doing. We are creating conservation areas, and we plan to create 15 new national urban parks. We have already created Rouge National Urban Park near Toronto. People can take a train from downtown Toronto to Rouge National Urban Park, which is one of the most visited national parks in the country.

Evidently, what we have done so far also stems from the targets we agreed on at COP15 in Montreal in 2022. Allow me to quickly remind my colleagues what COP is. It is the Conference of the Parties, and it grew out of the 1992 Rio summit, where countries made commitments jointly, willingly and in an informed manner to tackle desertification, conservation and biodiversity, and climate change. At the COP in Montreal, which took place in a difficult international political context, in a geopolitical situation that challenged us all, 194 countries jointly committed to protecting 30% of our lands and oceans by 2030. My colleague opposite says there is a 2050 target, and I would really like him to show me where that target is. I have been working on these issues for decades and I have never seen a 2050 target for Canada. I am sorry, but he is making up things that just do not exist.

Experts have described this conference as an historic agreement, with some even going so far as to call it a “bet on nature.” For us, of course, conservation is extremely important, but it is also something we must do in partnership with local communities. This is work that Parks Canada has been doing in an exemplary manner for many decades. One need only look at what is happening in Banff National Park or Jasper National Park to see very concrete examples. For us, it is also a way of working toward reconciliation.

My colleague, the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, mentioned the Northwest Territories as an example. I worked on this project along with 23 indigenous nations of the Northwest Territories in unanimous agreement. It was the first time in history this had happened. The Government of the Northwest Territories, the federal government and partners in Canada and around the world worked together to create this new conservation area, which, to the best of our knowledge, is set to be the largest indigenous-led protected area in the world, covering roughly one million square kilometres.

That is how we are going to get there. I had the privilege of leading the creation of the first national park where everything, from start to finish, was done with indigenous peoples. I am referring to Pituamkek park in Prince Edward Island. This was the first time in our nation's history that we created a new national park in partnership with indigenous communities. In fact, they were the ones who approached us. Members of the Mi'kmaq community told us that they wanted this highly iconic and symbolic portion of their territory to be protected. They wanted to turn it into a national park, first of all to ensure that it was properly protected and conserved, but secondly, so that Canadians could go there and discover a part of their heritage and history.

This brings me to the ecological gifts program, which directly contributes to the Government of Canada's land protection objectives. It is important to understand where the 30% figure comes from. Did we pull that number out of thin air, as some seemed to suggest? Of course not. It is important to look at the science. Numerous scientific reports have been produced that show us how to protect biodiversity. In case the Conservatives have forgotten, human beings are animals who need clean air and clean water to survive. We cannot live without those things, and we need a healthy terrestrial ecosystem. However, to achieve this, we need to protect at least 30% of our land and oceans, which is why we have set this target. It is not a ceiling, but rather a floor. That is where we need to start.

The ecological gifts program plays a very important role because it enables conservation efforts on private land. In fact, the Conservative Party member did not once mention that the ecological gifts program relies on private landowners who commit to these projects entirely on a voluntary basis. These projects are essential pillars for achieving our goals. They help protect natural habitats on private land: forests, wetlands, and farmland. Some say that the land needs to stay completely untouched, but the program includes farmland. We are talking about voluntary conservation, and it is essential across the country.

I would like to share a few examples of the benefits of this program. Since 1995, more than 2,000 ecological gifts have been made. This amounts to over $1.3 billion in donations and more than 252,000 hectares of permanently protected land, nearly half of Prince Edward Island. There are challenges associated with this program, and I believe the government can take steps to improve it, particularly with regard to ensuring tax parity between different types of donations, whether in-kind or monetary.

In closing, protecting our precious natural environment is a necessity for our health, in terms of the water and air we need to live, but it is also our greatest ally in the fight against climate change and a celebration of Canadian identity.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has five minutes for his right of reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, the debate on Motion No. 15 is coming to an end. Basically, this motion brings us back to a very simple yet fundamental question: What are we actually doing to protect our lands in Canada in 2026?

That may seem like a broad question, but on the ground, it takes a very practical form. As our Prime Minister so rightly said, “The beauty of Canada's nature — from lakes and forests to mountains and coastlines — is central to our history, our identity, and our way of life. As Canadians, we have the responsibility to protect the lands and waters we have inherited”.

In my riding of Brome—Missisquoi, in the Eastern Townships, this is a reality that we experience every day. We live in a region where the richness of our land is part of our identity. However, this richness is fragile and much of it is found on private land. I regularly meet with concerned landowners, families and citizens who want to protect their land because they care about preserving what they have received and passing it on to future generations. These people are making important choices that have a direct impact on biodiversity, the quality of our living environments and the future of our regions, but they cannot do it alone.

Right there beside them are conservation organizations, such as Appalachian Corridor and the Société de conservation du Mont Brome, which work tirelessly to protect these areas. They support owners, organize projects and manage protected areas over the long term. In short, they make conservation possible from a practical perspective. What these people on the ground are telling us is that the Canadian model of voluntary conservation is working but that it could be improved. Today, our system recognizes ecological gifts of land. That is a good thing. However, the reality of conservation is not just about acquiring land. It is also about everything that comes before and after: management, maintenance and protection over the long term. That depends largely on the organizations' ability to act.

Motion No. 15 raises the issue of fairness and consistency. It invites us to ensure that our tax tools accurately reflect this reality as a whole and that the various ways of contributing to conservation are recognized in a fair and balanced way because, ultimately, the goal is to sustainably protect our natural environments. This discussion is also part of a broader context. The Government of Canada recently announced a new national nature strategy, which clearly recognizes that we need to mobilize more private capital to meet our conservation goals. That is a very important point. Governments have a role to play, but we know that we will not meet our goals without citizen engagement. We will not succeed without the help of the private sector. Most importantly, we will not succeed without creating the right tools.

A large portion of the land to be protected is privately owned. That means one thing: We have to work with local residents. We have to give them tools. We have to recognize their contribution. We have to ensure that the framework they operate in is consistent, effective and adapted to today's reality. Motion No. 15 reinforces exactly that. By improving tax incentives, we are creating the conditions needed to mobilize more private capital for conservation. We are transforming willingness into true capacity for action. That is exactly the spirit behind Motion No. 15. This approach is not coercive. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach. It is based on collaboration, voluntary commitment and shared responsibility.

Obviously, as in any serious debate, concerns have been raised and they are important. We must always ensure that the measures that we put in place are properly regulated and responsible and that they achieve the desired results. Motion No. 15 proposes that we take a step back and begin considering this in a structured way drawing on expertise from the field, from organizations and from citizens. This is an invitation to improve what already exists. Protecting our land is not an abstract issue. It is real. It is local. It often starts with individual decisions, decisions made by people who choose to protect a woodland or natural environment, to contribute to something bigger than themselves. Our role as parliamentarians is to ensure that these people are recognized, supported and encouraged.

Motion No. 15 sends a clear message that protecting our natural heritage is a shared responsibility; that, at a time when Canada is setting ambitious targets, we also need to give ourselves the means to achieve them, particularly by mobilizing private capital; and that it is in our collective interest to give ourselves the means to act together in an intelligent, consistent and sustainable manner.

In closing, I want to thank Stéphanie and Anne from my office, who supported me tirelessly and whose work was essential in putting forward this motion in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, I am again here late at night to offer the government common-sense solutions. We hear every day that our health care system is stretched thin. Across the 34 communities in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, too many people are already struggling to find a family doctor. We should be reducing pressure on the system, not adding to it, yet the federal disability tax credit process continues to do exactly that.

Family doctors are spending hours on Government of Canada paperwork when they could instead be seeing their patients. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has been clear. In 2022, roughly 250,000 disability tax credit forms consumed about 250,000 hours of physician time, which is the equivalent of one million lost patient visits. That is one million appointments that could have gone to giving Canadians the care they need.

There is also another side to this problem. Across the country, many people who already qualify for disability supports in their province or territory cannot access the disability tax credit, not because they are ineligible but because they cannot find a doctor to complete the form. No doctor means no form, and no form means no access. As a result, people are being shut out of both the disability tax credit and the disability benefit that depends on getting the disability tax credit. The benefit they are trying to get is modest, about $200 a month, but it can make a huge difference in the life of someone who is living on disability. It can be the difference between getting by and falling even further behind. Instead of removing barriers, the government is maintaining them.

We are also learning from public servants at the Canada Revenue Agency who deal with the burdensome and duplicative process I identified that they are repeating the work that provinces and territories have already done. While a growing backlog of applications leaves Canadians waiting, this is not just inefficient but deeply frustrating for the staff, doctors and health care workers who are trying to help the people navigate the system to get this done.

I have been raising this issue for years. Tonight I am responding to a question I asked again in December, and this question still has not improved the situation. Budget 2025 sets aside $10 million so applicants can pay a $150 fee to navigate the same broken process. Instead of fixing the system, the Liberal government is asking people to pay to get through it. It is just not okay. This is not a solution.

Canadians deserve to know why these barriers remain. When eligible people cannot access supports, it raises serious ethical questions about whether the complexity is being used to limit access and make life harder rather than to improve outcomes. That is why I introduced Bill C-211, which would make it easier for people with disabilities to access the benefits they are entitled to while reducing the paperwork burden on health care workers.

Right now, Canadians are forced to prove the same disability over and over again across different levels of government. My bill would streamline the process so that when a disability is recognized by a province or territory, it would automatically be recognized federally. This is a practical and common-sense fix. It would reduce barriers, improve access to benefits and free up doctors to focus on patient care. It would also ensure that people are not excluded simply because they cannot access a physician to complete their paperwork.

Canadians deserve a system that works. New Democrats will continue to put forward practical solutions that relieve pressure on our health care system, respect health care workers and ensure that supports reach the very people who need them the most. It is time to fix the disability tax credit process once and for all.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Courtenay—Alberni correctly notes that provinces already determine eligibility for their respective programs, including those based on disability. He is asking why the minister will not accept provincial approval to reduce barriers to obtaining the disability tax credit. It is not about red tape. The Canada disability benefit provides up to $2,400 per year to low-income persons with disabilities between the ages of 18 and 64 who are eligible for the disability tax credit, among other criteria. The amount is indexed to inflation and will be adjusted each July to reflect cost of living increases.

This benefit was identified as a priority for the disability community because, although provinces and territories play a critical role in providing supports and services to Canadians with disabilities, those programs vary widely in objective, design, scope and amount. Our benefit was always intended to supplement, not replace, existing provincial and territorial income support measures. That is because our priority is to ensure equal access to support for persons with disabilities regardless of where they live in this country. We deliberately chose to base the eligibility criteria on the disability tax credit rather than provincial and territorial benefits to avoid creating disparities where a person qualified for the benefit in one province or territory and not in another. We wanted all Canadians to have equal access to federal support in addition to support they receive from provinces and territories.

Basing disability eligibility on the disability tax credit ensures the Canada disability benefit is delivered in a consistent and equal way across Canada. We recognize that navigating these benefits and their requirements can be challenging, so we have made improvements. In budget 2025, we announced our intention to offset the cost of applying for the disability tax credit. New payments of $150 will be made to current, past and future Canada disability benefit recipients to help offset costs associated with applying for the disability tax credit. The payments are expected to be paid before the end of 2026-27.

Additionally, the 2024 federal budget committed funding to support not-for-profit community-based organizations. This will help connect persons with disabilities in accessible and culturally appropriate ways to federal, provincial, territorial and/or local benefits that could assist them. This will also include the Canada disability benefit and the disability tax credit. Currently, 14 community-based organizations are receiving funding to help address barriers and increase take-up of benefits.

These are a few ways we are supporting Canadians with disabilities by supporting their financial security.

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

Mr. Speaker, even though this is federal, clearly the Liberal government does not see this as its issue. During COVID, governments moved quickly. We cut red tape, trusted existing systems and delivered support when Canadians needed it most. We need that same urgency now.

Today, doctors are losing valuable time to paperwork instead of seeing patients. People who qualify for the disability tax credit and the Canada disability benefit cannot access the supports they need because they cannot find a doctor to complete the form. Meanwhile, public servants are stuck managing a duplicative process and growing backlogs. When resources are scarce, every hour matters and every barrier matters.

Provinces already assess eligibility. The government needs to recognize that and act: Stop the duplication, free up doctors, support people and let public servants do their job. Why will the Liberal government not act now and take this issue seriously?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his advocacy on behalf of Canadians with disabilities. I respect his work on this as he works tirelessly. I look forward to working with him on this.

I appreciate the opportunity to remind colleagues that we are working to support persons with disabilities struggling with a higher cost of living. The Canada disability benefit is one part of a system of supports guided by the principle that inclusion is the foundation of a strong and resilient society. This is important work. As my colleague has noted, the government will continue engaging with provinces and territories to ensure Canada disability benefit recipients are better off because of the benefit.

Our program highlights the federal government's commitment to building a more affordable and inclusive Canada.

Health

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have come over to the government's side temporarily to offer my question today, because I think it is a common-sense, bipartisan question. I think that anybody on the Liberal side or the Conservative side of the House should be able to ask this sort of question and get a reasonable response.

I certainly did not want to be here tonight. I asked what I thought was a very reasonable question to my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. She did not really answer it, and that is why I am here tonight. I am going to try asking it again, and I am going to beg her to answer it this time.

For folks following at home, I will explain that the Liberal government in the last Parliament spent $250 million on a program called PrescribeIT, with the laudable goal of making it easier for physicians, such as me, to send prescriptions to the pharmacy. I am from the Waterloo region and went to the University of Waterloo. A lot of my friends are tech entrepreneurs and founders. Many of them are senior software developers at this stage of our life. I have asked them how much money this sort of thing should cost. They have said maybe $1 million, and $5 million maximum. There is no way it should have cost $250 million.

The Liberals were spraying money from a firehose. It is incredible to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on something that should have cost 250 times less, but what is worse is that the program did not work. The Liberals know that it did not work, which is why they have cancelled it. After spending a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer money on something that did not work, they are cancelling it. The taxpayer is getting nothing.

I know that my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, was not here in the last Parliament. She did not sign the contract. The Prime Minister also was not here. There is no blame in it for either of them, but as a country, as a Parliament, we need to get to the bottom of this. It is Parliament's sacred duty to protect the taxpayer's dollar, and 250 million is a lot of dollars, so we would like to see the contract.

We put forward a motion at the health committee to see the contract. The Government of Canada entered into that contract on behalf of the taxpayers and blew 250 million of their dollars. I think our bosses, the taxpayers, should get to see what the heck happened. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, spent two hours of our time filibustering the motion so as to not produce the document.

The Prime Minister gave a speech today to reporters in which he said he does not like filibustering, and he criticized some Conservative members for speaking about “cats and dogs”. Does the Prime Minister know that the parliamentary secretary has been filibustering the document production order? Is he happy with that? Why is she doing it? Why will she not stop? Why will she not let the taxpayers see the contract so we can all stop this sort of waste and mismanagement from going forward in the future under the new government, as it likes to call itself?

I am sitting close to the parliamentary secretary and can see that she has prepared remarks. I am begging her to put them away and just answer this very simple question for taxpayers: Why will she not just let us, as Canadians, taxpayers and residents in an open society, see the contract, please?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Kitchener South—Hespeler for his question. Although he has temporarily crossed the floor, I hope it is more permanent than this. It is nice to have a friend sitting right beside us during adjournment debate. As members know, sometimes it can be a bit lonely during adjournment debate, so I appreciate the companionship.

I think my colleague mentioned that, as a physician, he has seen first-hand how digitization has shaped and transformed Canadian health care over the past decades in Kitchener, and rightfully so. It is a capital, with a lot of digital transformations and innovations coming out of the city and the university. I think he is also very proud of that.

The world is rapidly changing, and Canadians rightfully expect that our health care system will change with it. That is why successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have invested in Canada Health Infoway since 2001, with the goal of accessible information for patients and their doctors. That is also why we introduced Bill S-5, the connected care for Canadians act, in the Senate, so that Canadians can securely access their health care data anywhere and any time in Canada. Just as importantly, we need to reduce the administrative burden on doctors so they can spend less time on filling out paperwork and more time doing what they love, which is caring for their patients.

This has been at the heart of the work by our government and previous governments to develop a pan-Canadian interoperability road map, one that drives the adoption and use of electronic medical records by doctors across the country and helps them share data safely and securely. Part of this work included PrescribeIT. As the member knows from his time as a doctor, many physicians are still using fax machines. It is almost impossible to find fax machines anywhere else in a world with emails and secure online messages. However, if one goes to some doctors' offices, one feels like they have been transported to a different time. That was why the previous government worked with the provinces and territories to develop PrescribeIT. The goal was to move our health system toward safe, secure and efficient e-prescribing that could deliver real benefits to Canadians and to the health care providers who serve them every single day. I think the member would agree that this was an understandably worthwhile goal, as he mentioned in his remarks.

No matter the intention, the facts have been very clear. The previous government's intention for PrescribeIT was for it to become self-sustaining. However, by any measure, it was clear that the program was not achieving that goal. Rather than simply continuing to invest in a program that was not delivering the intended results, we undertook a comprehensive review and consultation process that included engaging with provinces and territories and with the people who actually use the program. Based on these findings, we decided to end PrescribeIT.

However, the work to promote a more connected health care system for Canadians needs to continue and will continue. We continue to support organizations like Canada Health Infoway, as well as provinces and territories, to develop innovative new digital solutions. Not only that, we are backstopping this work with Bill S-5, the connected care for Canadians act, which would help Canadians move their health data with them anywhere they go.

Canadians deserve a modern health system. I look forward to working with my friend and colleague to deliver that.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us start that work right now. Please answer the question: Why will you not let us see the contract?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Please speak through the Chair.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. PrescribeIT was launched by the previous government with the goal of building a national e-prescribing system. While this is an important goal, the fact is that PrescribeIT did not have the pickup among doctors and pharmacies that it needed to make the system self-sustaining. At a time when we need to spend less and invest more, our government decided to end the funding for the program.

There is important work to be done in creating a connected digital health care system that works for all Canadians. Through legislation like the connected care for Canadians act, we are delivering on the digital future.

Public Services and Procurement

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at a time of global conflict and energy insecurity, Canada should be part of the solution by providing ourselves and our allies a secure and reliable source of energy. Instead, the Prime Minister continues to block Canadian energy development while our allies search elsewhere for supply, leaving us vulnerable to Trump's unjustified tariffs. Today, none of Canada's oil reaches Europe because Liberal laws have made it nearly impossible to build pipelines or the export facilities that are needed to get it there. The consequences are serious.

Amid the conflict in the Middle East, the Trump administration continues easing sanctions on Russian oil. Every barrel that Russia sells means more revenue to Putin's war machine. Instead of supporting Canadians, that money is funding a dictatorship that continues to terrorize Ukrainian civilians. Canada cannot control global conflicts, but we can control whether our resources reach the world market. It is time for the government to remove the barriers holding Canadian energy back.

There has been photo op after photo op, with dozens of police officers as a backdrop, to announce empty promises. The Liberal Prime Minister and public safety minister pledged to improve safety with 1,000 new RCMP officers. The Auditor General delivered a damning report recently that said the RCMP is now short 3,400 officers. Recruitment is failing. With only 1,500 spots available, the training positions are still not being fulfilled. After a year-long wait to get processed, only 6% of applicants are making it through the process. The RCMP is failing to recruit, train and retain the officers we need to protect our communities, and the government continues to turn a blind eye to the problem.

In rural communities, like the ones I represent in Yellowhead, police are stretched to a breaking point. They cannot keep up with the wave of crime while the Liberals delay real bail reform. Even with the announcements, there have been enough photo ops. It is time to stop the illusions, put real boots on the ground and actually protect Canadians.

The Auditor General has made it clear that after nearly a decade, billions of dollars and countless promises, the Liberal government has no credible plan to fix the Phoenix pay system. Over 133,000 public employees remain trapped in a backlog of pay errors, with many afraid to retire because they do not trust that they are actually going to get their correct pay. The government is now preparing to move forward with a replacement system while the underlying problems remain unresolved. The Auditor General warned that without fixing the existing data and the backlog, the same errors will simply be transformed into the new system.

What has all this cost? The Phoenix system cost $4 billion, and now the government is planning to spend another $3.5 billion on a replacement system that risks repeating the same mistakes. Public servants have been overpaid, underpaid or not paid at all. It is no wonder the bureaucrats in Ottawa and across the country do not trust the Liberal government, let alone Canadians who lost confidence years ago.

I ask the government this. Why is it prioritizing a rushed transition to a new pay system instead of fixing the existing backlog, cleaning up the data and ensuring that the same costly mistakes are not being repeated?