Debates of May 29th, 2026

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are rather disappointed with Bill C-31.

We are disappointed because neither the implementation bill nor the economic update really take into account the current tariff crisis. This serious crisis is affecting businesses in general, but, once again, it has been particularly hard on businesses in Quebec, where these tariffs apply to one-quarter of exports. Smaller businesses have been particularly hard hit.

That is something else that makes Quebec unique. When I say that the country of Quebec already exists, I mean that there are already structural differences between Quebec and Canada. Quebec's economy is made up of SMEs, and they need support. They need a government that is there for them and that tells them that we are going through a tough time because our neighbours to the south have an unpredictable president. No one here knows what he will do next. There is nothing worse for the economy and for our businesses than uncertainty, so we have to be there for them, but the government is not taking serious action.

Then, the Bloc Québécois put forward 11 requests. That may seem like a lot, but they are reasonable requests. We wanted to put them up for discussion. Ever since I arrived here in 2019, the Bloc Québécois has been an intelligent and constructive opposition. In fact, it is in the Bloc Québécois's DNA to work that way. We are not here to obstruct everything, despite what some may think or say. We are here to move things forward for the common good, at least for the time being, of course, because our ultimate goal remains achieving Quebec's independence. In our day-to-day work here, we are well aware that time is of the essence and that our goal is far from unrealistic. It is essential to the full and comprehensive development of our society, in accordance with its values and, above all, its priorities. It is not that Canada is not a beautiful country. That is not the issue, and this is not directed against Canada. It is really about our own development according to our own choices and priorities. This will certainly be done in partnership with Canada, since Canada will always be an important neighbour. However, we are in Parliament and we have made proposals. We asked our colleagues to look at them and we have not even received a call. There has not even been 12 seconds of consultation.

Things were different a few months ago. However, because of some backroom deals, people crossed the floor and the government built itself a majority. Once it had a majority, consultation was over. The government talks a good game. They say that they will continue to work in the common interest and listen to opposition parties, and so on.

In fact, the reality is that we get bills like C‑31, for which we did some serious work early on. That is probably the most insulting part of all of this. It is not as though we did not bother to work or as though we just spouted some populist rhetoric and said that the government is bad or rotten. We analyzed the situation. We have a team of researchers and a team of MPs. We are serious. We are dedicated. We came up with real proposals. I get the feeling that the government did not even bother to read them.

Of course, we fully expected that some of our proposals would be rejected, such as the idea to reimburse Quebeckers for the money that was stolen from us and used to buy Liberal votes in the last election. We included that out of principle, to make sure no one forgets. We honestly do not understand why this is not generating more reaction in the media. That said, it seems to me that the government should have considered some of the other proposals. After all, it claims to be reasonable.

Bill C-31 is a major, complex bill that is several hundred pages long and that contains numerous amendments. Once again, and this sums up the essence of my speech this morning, the Bloc leader's office requested, in good faith and in a constructive way, a briefing session on the subtleties and specific features of the bill. We waited more than three weeks before that briefing was held. It took place this week.

At the same time, we are expected to pass this bill as soon as possible. The answer is going to be no. We cannot hand over a blank cheque for such important, large-scale measures while the government continues to expand its subsidies to the oil and gas industry, for example. Enough is enough. Let us be serious and work together. This government has three years left, if it manages to hold on to its majority. People may get fed up, like the former environment minister, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who announced this week that he is leaving politics. Now that is really something, forcing someone like him to leave politics. That means that the Liberals have pushed things too far when it comes to the highly polluting oil from the west. That is also part of the issue.

Returning to today's topic, the bill proposes to once again expand oil and gas industry subsidies. We requested a briefing to ensure that we properly understood the bill, but since the Liberals won a majority, the government seems to scorn us. They seem to have no need for a group of MPs that want Quebec to become independent. They seem no longer interested in even talking to us, now that they can vote as a majority and pass bills as fast as they please. Is that democracy? Has the government now decided to administer things at lightning speed? Let us just say that we do not like it.

Furthermore, based on our initial interpretation, considering the limited time we were given and the information we received, Bill C-31 opens the door to increased government powers and less transparency. We also see that the system for processing air traveller complaints has changed. The government appears to be trying to sweep that issue under the rug. We are deeply concerned about travellers' rights. The government says it wants to take a different approach by having these complaints handled not by the Canadian Transportation Agency, but by a private firm.

Once again, and I will repeat this several times in my speech to make sure that the government hears me, we were not given a proper explanation and we were not given the opportunity to carefully examine the provisions of this bill. As we understand it, we could end up with private companies working for the airlines to quickly resolve passengers' complaints. Now passengers can be treated with contempt by those companies too. Why not? That is already the way things have been going. It is unfortunate, but for all of these reasons, I have to announce that we will be voting against this bill.

Before I close, I want to mention a few of the constructive proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois. For one, the government needs to stop subsidizing big oil. Oil companies are making exorbitant profits. When the government makes the mistake of removing a tax, it does not take long for the benefits to disappear. We saw this with the suspension of the excise tax and the 10¢ rebate. How many years has the Bloc Québécois been repeating the same message? If the government removes a tax, then this greedy sector will fill that void and put the money in its own pockets. That is what happened. If the government removes another tax, then the same thing will happen. The oil companies will wait a few weeks and then they will do it subtly on some pretext about what is happening abroad. At the end of the day, they will pocket the money. Enough with the subsidies. There are other things we could be doing with those billions of dollars.

Take SME wage subsidy programs, for example. They play a vital and important role in maintaining the economic fabric of our regions. However, they are not being used. As for the EI reform, it makes no sense for an EI system to cover only about 60% of its contributors. It means that 40% of people contributing to the plan are throwing money out the window and will never qualify for benefits. We cannot accept that. It constitutes a serious injustice. We could talk about the spring gap that seasonal workers face. There are lots of things we could talk about. We need meaningful measures for our media, the reinstatement of the digital services tax and the reinstatement of labour tax credits.

The federal government must listen to the opposition parties. We are not here to block everything. We are here to contribute our opinion, to share Quebec's take on situations and to work constructively. I am sending the government a message. If it wants us to vote in favour of a future bill, it will have to get serious and respect opposition MPs, because just like Liberal MPs, they too were elected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick point about the member's talking about respecting the opposition. I think there has been a great deal of collaboration in different ways from the government. We are looking for ideas, as we see with numerous private members' bills. I think back to the days when I was in opposition. Very rarely did the government support a private member's bill, and we can contrast that to what we have been able to do in the last year.

I must say that I am disappointed in the Bloc for not recognizing the bigger picture in terms of what is taking place: the idea of expanding trade opportunities and looking at infrastructure. I think of the port of Montreal, for example. There are many things happening today that are going to be there to give strength and to build a stronger and healthier Canada. The budget is a very important aspect of that build, and the Bloc is determined to vote against it. I am somewhat disappointed. I would have thought that it would have seen the bigger picture.

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

Mr. Speaker, he is not the only one who is disappointed. I am disappointed with that answer. The government talks a good game. It says that it is working co-operatively and that it voted in favour of private members' bills, but that was when there was a minority government. For the past few weeks, the government has had a rigged majority, a manufactured majority. It is a similar story in the previous Parliament. At a certain point, the government made a deal with the NDP and started acting like a majority government.

Co-operation happens in a minority setting. That should send an important message to the public. We heard the parliamentary secretary. The best government is a minority government. It helps prevent authoritarian excesses and bills that are passed are reasonable and arise from consensus.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I know that for many years he was the Bloc Québécois agriculture critic and I know that he cares about local craft producers of berry-based alcoholic beverages. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a modest measure that would not cost the government much, but that would make a difference for local producers of alcoholic beverages made from berries and maple syrup.

Can my colleague explain to the government how exempting small local producers from the excise tax would make life much easier for our farmers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her intelligent and logical question.

I hope the government is listening when I say that this is essential. This measure has already been implemented in the case of mead, for example. When it was done in committee, it was done quickly, and the amendment was incomplete, because it did not include berry-based alcohol. This is a fundamental measure.

There are a lot of members on the other side of the House. The Liberals often boast about having 44 members from Quebec and representing the regions. Many of the members across the aisle have farmers in their ridings.

We are not talking about huge sums of money here, unlike the billions of dollars the government is throwing at oil companies. Let us be serious and support small businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech.

My question is about the last part of his speech, when he talked about the difference between a minority and a majority Parliament, from a democracy standpoint.

Some citizens, some Quebeckers, do believe that it is better if the government has a majority. Why is a minority government better for democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question, which is an interesting one.

Having a minority government forces parties to compromise. Absolute power is never a good thing. When the government has a minority, it is forced to consult with the other parties. If it wants a bill to be passed, it must talk with with the opposition and convince them. The opposition may raise some concerns; it may say that it agrees on one thing, but that another aspect should also be considered.

The best thing about that—and I have experienced this over many years—is that, often, the government realizes that it is actually a good idea. They mull it over and may even include it. That is how it worked when we discussed legislation to protect supply management. The trouble at the moment is that the government is not listening to us anymore; I am not even sure they have read our proposals. That is the tragic part about it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. If we look at it, we see that the very first action of the government when we acquired the majority, when the three new members were brought into the chamber, was to pass a private member's bill that was an opposition bill. Since then, we have seen pass out of second reading support pending on amendments to private members' bills that again were opposition bills.

I have been in opposition for many years, more years than in government, and I can tell members that it is more about the responsibility of the opposition and the way in which it works, which is often based on personalities. To try to give a false impression that a majority government is a bad government I think does a disservice. Yes, at times a majority can be a problem; I have been in that situation too, but it is not a generalization that should be made. A majority, especially at a time when we need to build a stronger, healthier Canada, I would suggest is a good thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, we could spend all day getting caught up in semantics, but the parliamentary secretary is completely mistaken. When private members' bills were passed, the Liberals were in the minority. That is the key difference.

I hope they will do it again. They will probably do it for bills that are not controversial. For example, if we vote on the bill establishing Arab heritage month, which is currently under consideration and is a consensus bill, they will take credit for passing private members' bills.

When it comes to the substance of the budget, it seems to me that if the parliamentary secretary were even remotely serious, he would take a moment to reflect. He would speak with the members of his party and tell them that he did not come across very well this morning in Parliament and that the Liberals might want to have a little chat with the members of the Bloc Québécois.

The parliamentary secretary is talking about attitude, but our attitude has not changed. We are always constructive. He says that a wage subsidy proposal for SMEs is not a good idea. The Liberals do not have to accept it, but they should at least talk to us about it.

There was no consultation. We waited three weeks to get a briefing. Now the government is saying that we need to have a vote this week. The answer is written on my face, because I am not allowed to use the words I want to use.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague to talk about what SMEs in Quebec really need. We know that the Bloc Québécois is very close to businesses in our communities, which have a different approach than the rest of Canada. What we are hearing from these business people is that the measures currently in place are not adapted to their reality. Businesses are closing and the regions are in a precarious economic situation.

What could the government have done to prevent this situation?

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

Mr. Speaker, for one, it could have done more than just provide loans, because, eventually, a company's debt level rises dramatically. I just mentioned the wage subsidy. What a wonderful way to preserve the economic fabric of the regions by maintaining the employment relationship between the worker and the company, even if production has to slow down or operations have to stop temporarily.

It seems that the government's current intention is to see small businesses disappear and for everything to be concentrated in large companies, because the focus is on helping large companies. I hope that is not the case, but I feel I need to raise the issue publicly. I would like an answer on that.

Ordinary people in the regions are asking us for help, asking us for support, and the government should be more present than it is. At the very least, I urge the government to sit down with us so that we can discuss potential solutions. If it does not like this solution, let us find another one that will suit everyone. That is how government is supposed to work for the common good.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

I wanted to start today by giving my best regards to Albertans who are standing up for the “Fight Back Now” day of action that is taking place across Alberta today. It is being organized by the Alberta Federation of Labour. I really wish I could be there today. I want to congratulate the workers, union members, indigenous leaders, community organizers, students, health care advocates and every ordinary Albertan who is coming together to raise their voices for fairness, for dignity and for a better future for our province and for our country.

At a time when separatist rhetoric is being fuelled by Danielle Smith and the UCP government, at a time when workers' rights, public health care, public education, indigenous rights and human rights of many Albertans are under attack, these Albertans are standing up for the values that built my province: solidarity, public service, good jobs and looking out for one another. Their message is clear. Albertans are tired of governments that prioritize corporate profits and political division, while families struggle to afford housing, access health care and make ends meet.

Today's day of action is a reminder that democracy is not passive. Change happens because people organize, speak out and demand better. Albertans, today, are demanding better.

I want to start by talking a little bit about Alberta. The frustrations that Albertans feel are real. When we talk about the budget implementation act and the spring economic statement, we have to acknowledge the moment we find ourselves in. People in Alberta feel economically insecure and politically alienated.

We are seeing problems on both sides of this House in response to that. We know that the Conservatives are fuelling division and rage, exploiting that anger in Alberta with the UCP government. We know that the Liberals think dangling a pipeline in front of Albertans will in fact fix the separation issue. That is not the way this works. Appeasing separatists with symbolic concessions is like appeasing Donald Trump. It never works because the goalposts change. It never works because they will move the goalposts further down the line.

Canadians, including Albertans, need economic security. They need strong public services and national unity that is based on fairness. National unity cannot be bought with a pipeline announcement, while people cannot afford rent, cannot find a doctor and feel abandoned by the governments that represent them. This economic statement did not help any of that.

Budgets reveal priorities and values. Canadians are struggling with affordability, access to health care and a health care system in Alberta that is at the point of collapse. We have housing insecurity and global instability. This moment we find ourselves in right now calls for courage and it calls for transformational leadership. Instead what we saw from this spring economic statement was the protection of corporate interests, while asking ordinary Canadians to settle for less.

At a time when Canadians needed bold action, the Liberal government delivered corporate subsidies and broken promises. The reality is Canadians cannot afford their groceries, rent, insurance, utilities or medication. The cost of all of it is continuing to rise. People are working full-time and they cannot get ahead. Young people feel locked out of home ownership and stability entirely. Seniors are skipping meals and prescription medication. Disability supports remain wildly inadequate. While I will congratulate the government on tinkering on the edges and making the application process somewhat easier, the amount that we are giving to some of the most vulnerable people in our community does not meet the needs that those members of our community face. Temporary rebates and boutique programs do not solve structural affordability problems.

The government refuses to confront corporate profiteering. There is no serious excess profit tax on grocery giants or oil companies, and the government continues to provide corporate subsidies while families in this country are struggling. There is a progressive alternative. We could tax excess profits. We could build market housing at the scale needed to deal with the national housing crisis we are facing in this country right now. We could strengthen public services instead of privatizing them. We could invest directly in people, not in shareholders. We do not need more corporate press releases disguised as affordability policy. Canadians need governments that are willing to take on concentrated wealth and corporate greed.

Now I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the health care crisis we are facing. I know Alberta is ground zero for this, but I also know it is happening across the country. The institution of public health care, universally delivered, publicly delivered health care, is under attack in this country. Canadians cannot access family doctors. Emergency waiting rooms are closing. The wait times are in the hours, if not days. Hallway medicine has become normalized. Health care workers across the country are being left burnt-out and discouraged, and they are leaving the profession.

In Alberta, Danielle Smith is dismantling public health care, and the federal government is refusing to stand up for the law in this country, the Canada Health Act. In the budget implementation act, the government could have stood up. It could have stood up and invested in mental health care. It could have recommitted the dollars and support for a pharmacare program that it has been promising for decades. The vast majority of Canadians still do not have access to pharmacare, including in my province of Alberta. That is not the principle of the Canada Health Act. The principle of universality says every Canadian, regardless of where they live, should access the same level of care.

There is the dental care program that the New Democrats fought so hard for and has helped so many Canadians across this country. The government is failing to invest in it. The government is failing to support it. Canadians deserve a government looking after them, and they deserve a government that believes in the Canada Health Act and is willing to fight to enforce it. The hypocrisy of claiming to defend public health care while allowing privatization to spread and the hypocrisy of saying they support the Canada Health Act and then refusing to enforce it are not what Canadians need.

We need universal pharmacare. We need mental health care fully integrated into the public system. We need to defend and expand dental care. We need to train and retain health care workers. We need to enforce the Canada Health Act aggressively.

I want to finish by spending a few moments on international development and peacekeeping. Canada's role in the world has diminished. Canada once played a respected role in peacekeeping, diplomacy and international development, but the budget would continue a retreat from that leadership with a $2.7-billion cut to international development. This comes at a time when around the world, global insecurity is fuelling economic collapse and causing people to suffer everywhere. On the back of Donald Trump shutting down U.S. aid, Canada had an obligation to stand up. Canada had an obligation to be that country that so many of us believe we can be. Instead, the government has chosen to retreat once again from human rights.

The budget is about choices, and the choices the government has made are very disappointing.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to have an exchange with the member opposite in regard to health care. Health care is an issue that is problematic in a number of provinces. It is not only any one particular province that has been challenged in dealing with health care.

From my personal perspective, and I believe from a government perspective, we respect, follow, encourage and support the health care that Canadians want. It is a joint responsibility between the federal government and the provincial government, where provinces are responsible for the administration of health care.

With respect to the member's specific case in the province of Alberta, the federal Minister of Health has had discussions. We have been provided assurances that Alberta's Bill 11, the bill the member is so concerned about, is very clear. The premier has indicated that it will remain completely within the Canada Health Act.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think you were in the chair and the member was across the hall when we had this exact same exchange yesterday. Bill 11 breaks the Canada Health Act; the Canadian Health Coalition has a legal opinion that makes it very clear that it does.

Therefore, I do not understand why the Liberal government continues to say, “We have received assurances from the UCP government.” That assurance is not worth anything. Danielle Smith's mandate, her goal, her priorities and her plan is to dismantle health care, so it is a problem to have one of her ministers say, “Don't worry, there's nothing to see here”, and to have the Liberals, either through naivety or a desire to look the other way and not be bothered, say, “Oh, it's okay, they've told us it's good, so we're not looking any closer.” It is a problem for my province and for health care across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for Edmonton Strathcona, not just for today's speech but for absolutely everything. I do not always get to put a question to her, and she is stalwart on so many issues that it would take my time in a question just to list them.

My question is this: Is the member also struggling, as I am, to understand why we have now received a 331-page, part 2 budget bill, Bill C-31, and what within it has attracted her attention other than the macro-level issues she addressed in her speech?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague as well. She is somebody I have learned a lot from in the House, and I appreciate her mentorship.

The fact of the matter is that every single budget is about choices. Every bill that comes forward to the House from the government is about the choices the government is making. Time and time again what we are seeing is a Liberal government that is putting corporate interests ahead of the interests of Canadian families.

At a moment in time in our country when people cannot afford to live, when folks are worried about their jobs and when they are worried about the security of our economy, what they are seeing is a constant investment in corporations at the expense of Canadians. What that looks like for an everyday Canadian is that they still cannot afford groceries and rent, they are still struggling to make sure their bills get paid, yet they are seeing time and time again corporations getting the benefit of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague a question in French, to give her the opportunity to practise for her next leadership race. One never knows.

I want to ask her about the money the federal government owes Quebec. I could talk about the $814 million that was sent out right before the election to buy votes, but I will not go there. I want to ask her about the large numbers of asylum seekers arriving in Quebec. I am sure my colleague would agree that these people need to be taken care of. That costs money, and it falls under federal jurisdiction. We have been asking the federal government to do its part for many years now. We estimate that Ottawa owes Quebec $700 million. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Hypothetically, if she had been elected leader and found herself the Prime Minister of Canada, is that the kind of thing she would do to finally take Quebec's reality into account?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not living up to its obligations, and this is one of the things that are irritants to people across this country. The way we solve issues of separatist sentiment is to make sure the federal government is proving to citizens across this country that there is real value in staying part of our country, by making sure we are investing in the health care system, making sure we are protecting the CPP and making sure that when we give dollars to the provinces, they are able to deliver the services people are entitled to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the second budget implementation act. The core of this bill reflects our intention to build Canada strong. I thought I would use the next few minutes to talk a little about what we mean by “building Canada strong”.

First of all, we mean building a strong Canadian economy. From day one, we have focused on making the Canadian economy stronger and more resilient. Although we are facing a tariff war that we never asked for, we have to act first and foremost to support the sectors and workers that are most affected. I am thinking of the steel, aluminum, auto and lumber sectors.

My riding offers some concrete examples. The first announcement related to the strategic response fund was made in Madawaska—Restigouche and involved a business based in Clair, operating in the steel sector. The funds are intended to support the hardest-hit sectors to help them maintain operations and retool during challenging times.

I am also thinking about everything we have done to support the softwood lumber sector, which is particularly important for the economy in my riding. In particular, I am thinking about access to loan guarantees to facilitate quick access to liquidity when times are tough, as well as various measures that help the industry adapt, innovate and transform. In fact, there is a softwood lumber task force, in which New Brunswick is represented, of course.

In addition to this immediate work, we are also working hard to support our SMEs, which are the backbone of the Canadian economy. I am thinking in particular about all the programs to support innovation and encourage productivity gains.

Through budget 2025, we put in place a suite of measures called investment super-deductions, such as immediate expensing and other forms of accelerated depreciation. These measures send a clear message: The time to invest in Canada is now. In particular, these measures help businesses cover the cost of buying machinery, new technologies and various types of equipment so they can increase productivity and innovate.

There is also all the work we are doing to improve and streamline our scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. In fact, I have visited companies in my riding that are benefiting from this program and are eager to see the results of the improvements we are currently making to it.

There is also all the work we need to do to diversify the Canadian economy. Last year, in just 11 months, some 20 agreements were signed with countries around the world. This means new markets are opening up for Canadian businesses. It also means we will attract investment to Canada. This is already yielding meaningful results: a substantial increase in the value of Canadian goods exported to other regions of the world, outside the United States.

I can think of a tangible example from my riding. The agreement we signed with Mexico will, among other things, allow potatoes to be exported to the Mexican market both for processing and for consumption. This means that our local potato farmers will gain access to a market of over 130 million people. I have spoken with several potato farmers, and I must say they certainly welcomed the news.

In addition to the work we are doing to develop new trade ties around the world, we are also focusing on building a strong domestic market. That is an important pillar of our strategy to make Canada's economy more resilient. Take, for example, all of the measures that we have put in place to remove the interprovincial trade barriers that fall under federal jurisdiction, or our “buy Canadian” policy, which sends a clear message: The government wants us to be our own best customer.

I am also thinking of the various investment policies that stimulate domestic demand. I am thinking of housing, Canada's defence industrial strategy and infrastructure. We want to get Canadian businesses and workers involved and use Canadian products on these major projects to increase domestic demand and strengthen Canada's economy.

When we talk about building Canada strong, we are also talking about safe communities. Thanks to our ambitious legislative agenda, practical measures have already been introduced in the House. I am thinking of Bill C-14, which would make it harder for offenders to get bail and would provide for tougher sentences for the most dangerous criminals, particularly violent and repeat offenders. There is also Bill C-16, which is about offering better protection for victims of crime, such as victims of intimate partner violence, and protecting children from online predators.

In addition to introducing these legislative measures, we are also making significant investments in prevention, because that is key to ensuring safe communities. Here is a very recent and specific example related to the national crime prevention strategy. I had the pleasure of announcing over $560,000 in federal funding to help the Northwest Regional Service Commission implement the Planet Youth Northwest program.

Through this program, partners like the regional service commission, municipalities, the public health department, schools and community stakeholders will develop a range of activities to help reduce youth substance use, which is recognized as a factor that can lead to delinquent behaviour. They will also work to strengthen youth mental health and provide positive youth engagement experiences in their community.

Planet Youth is based on an Icelandic model. It will be rolled out and adapted to local realities in northwestern New Brunswick. It is also based on the ongoing collection of evidence-based data to ensure that the services and activities put in place truly meet the needs of our young people. As an MP, I can say that it is always a pleasure to announce funding in my region, especially when it supports young people.

When we talk about building Canada strong, as I often say, that also means having strong rural communities. Our rural regions are an integral part of our country. It is important that the programs we implement, including the ones targeting innovation, also benefit businesses in rural areas. I am thinking in particular of all the work done by our regional economic development agencies, such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, including through the regional economic growth through innovation program.

In recent weeks, I was pleased to announce more than $210,000 in federal funding for the Charlo Salmonid Enhancement Centre. This investment will support the drilling of a new artesian well, as well as the acquisition of an industrial fish grader that will help manage the growth of juvenile fish stocks. This type of investment will help solidify the centre's position within New Brunswick's aquaculture supply chain. It also contributes to the economic vitality of my region, particularly by helping to preserve good jobs.

This centre has been operating in the Restigouche area since 1938, helping to revitalize fish stocks in New Brunswick's waterways; that is nearly 90 years of activity. As an MP, I feel it is important to give these institutions—which are vital to our economy and our local communities—the means to continue operating in the long term. This investment will ensure the centre's stability. In the context of climate change, it will also give the centre access to groundwater sources. There was a problem with access to water, and this investment will help resolve it. As well as being a project that contributes to the economy, it is also in line with the new nature strategies, as it will help to better protect our natural ecosystems, particularly through the revitalization of fish stocks.

When we talk about building Canada strong, that also means supporting our community organizations, which are making a real difference on the ground. I am thinking in particular of organizations like the Acanthus Gallery in Grand Falls, which recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. I attended an event to mark the occasion and took the opportunity to announce $25,000 in funding. It is not always the largest amounts that make a difference, but these funds help our organizations meet their needs and continue contributing to the vitality of our communities. Over the past decade, the Acanthus Gallery has become a key arts and culture hub in Grand Falls. It is a popular destination for both local residents and visitors. It showcases local artists as well as artists from outside the region who come to exhibit there. Thanks to the grant that was recently announced, pottery classes will now be offered in the Grand Falls area. These are some of the measures we are implementing to strengthen our social fabric and support our community organizations.

When I talk about strengthening the socio-cultural vitality of our communities, that also means supporting our festivals. Summer is just around the corner, and I can tell the House that there will be no shortage of things to do in Madawaska—Restigouche. We have volunteers who are deeply committed to the vitality of our communities and are working hard to put together a great summer of programming. I am very pleased that our government is investing to support these initiatives. To give a few examples, I am thinking in particular of the financial support we provide to the Campbellton Salmon Festival, the Saint-Quentin Western Festival, the Grand Falls Potato Festival, the Rendez-Vous des Artistes de Saint-Léonard, and the Sortie branchée en Acadie, which takes place at the Botanical Garden in Saint-Jacques.

All these different types of investments send a clear message that the socio-cultural vitality of our communities is very much a priority for us.

I appreciate having the opportunity to expand a bit on what we mean when we talk about building Canada strong.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the work he has been doing in the House for over a year now.

Let us talk about the past year. For the past year, we have had a Liberal Prime Minister with a strong economic background. However, today, we learned that Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession.

Given everything the member said about how great and wonderful things are in Canada, how is that we are the only G7 country that is in a recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, since day one, we have been focusing on strengthening the Canadian economy. We did not ask for this tariff dispute, but we are not standing idly by. Since the United States is our largest trading partner, this dispute has had a major impact on our economy, our businesses and our workers, but we are working to diversify our economy. We have signed over 20 agreements, and that is producing real results.

I would invite my colleague to come talk to potato farmers in my riding who are seeing real economic benefits from these agreements. I am also thinking of the support that we are giving to the hardest-hit businesses, including those in the steel and softwood lumber industries. Once again, I would invite the member to come talk to businesses that have received this support, which has enabled them to maintain their operations. These businesses see the efforts that we are making to boost innovation and enhance their productivity gains through a variety of programs.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, has given us a glimpse into the beauty of his riding, and it has made me want to spend my summer holidays in that part of the country. I do not know if Tatamagouche is in his riding, but I had the pleasure of taking a short trip to that area.

I know that his riding includes cities as well as rural areas, and I am guessing there are berry growers in his riding who produce spirits. My colleagues will hear me talking about this several times today because this ongoing injustice is close to my heart. Three years ago, Justin Trudeau's Liberal government granted an excise duty exemption for mead-based berry spirits and also for apple cider, but not for berry-based spirits.

I would like to know if my colleague is willing to pressure his government to add an amendment to Bill C-31 that would make things fair for other berry producers, such as those who make blueberry or maple liqueurs. This is an important issue in rural Quebec. There are many Liberal members from Quebec who know that what I am saying is important.

Is my colleague ready to take up the cause in his own province and make it clear to the Minister of Finance that it is time to right this wrong?

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

Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague is welcome to visit Madawaska—Restigouche. There are indeed berry wine producers there. In fact, one of the wines served at the Parliamentary restaurant comes from my riding and is made from berries grown in my riding.

Over the past month, we announced, among other things, that we would be extending the cap on alcohol excise duties. Various discussions are ongoing. I would like to thank my colleague for her commitment to this issue. It would certainly be worthwhile for us to continue discussing this matter together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of what we are doing as a government in the current geopolitical context. I come from a rural area. I come from Brome—Missisquoi, a riding that is also very rural. I would like my colleague to tell me something. How will the efforts to build Canada strong also help to build strong rural communities?