Debates of June 8th, 2026

Concurrence in Vote 5—Department of National Defence

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes.

I want to begin where we should always begin, with judgment. Archibald Lampman, a Canadian poet who worked right here in Ottawa, once wrote, “The pulse of the great machine goes on forever, dead and blind, and no voice or sound of human will disturbs its deep and ceaseless grind.”

The reason I share this is because Canadians are watching the decision about Maritime Launch Services in such bewilderment. They are asking if this is an actual attempt at Canadian space sovereignty or something else altogether. Many who have looked into this decision closely have questions. The more they look and the more they research, the more this looks like a decision that was hastily made and that just happens to support well-connected Liberal insiders and lobbyists surrounding Maritime Launch Services.

The Liberal members will stand in this House and argue this $200-million expenditure is a necessary investment to secure Canada's place in a global space economy. They will justify this spending, just as Liberals always justify deficit spending, to grow the economy, meet the moment, invest in our future and protect our sovereignty. We have heard it all before, over and over again, with the superclusters, the SDTC green slush fund, planting billions of trees and subsidizing EV battery plants. I could go on and on. Liberals will always find new ways to burn tax dollars on projects that benefit Liberal friends and insiders, but these projects always fizzle out and leave nothing but debt and unanswered questions behind.

Let us look at the so-called space sovereignty spending, the $20 million in this allocation. If this was truly a national investment, we would, of course, be building a national asset. As an example, when Norway decided it needed its own sovereign launch capacity, it acted with the discipline of a sovereign state. It built its own infrastructure, it owns the land, it owns the pad and it owns the capability. It has an asset directly under its control. Who owns NASA? The people of the United States through the U.S. government.

Who will own Maritime Launch Services, the spaceport that we are talking about? This is where it gets a tad murky. At the present time, online information suggests that 26% of the ownership is held by individuals, close to 12% is listed as institutional owners and the remaining balance of 60% is unknown. This is for a national asset, something that the Liberals tell us is necessary for our space sovereignty. In other words, the Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what other democratic countries are doing when it comes to protecting and creating space sovereignty. This means we are not building a true national asset.

Instead, we are building a private company's balance sheet. We are paying $200 million for the privilege of using a facility we do not own, under terms that strip away our sovereign leverage and hand it to a private entity. That is the difference between acquiring an asset and assuming an obligation. They are not the same thing. Make no mistake, this is giving away public tax dollars to create private equity, a scheme that a Brookfield investor would no doubt approve of. The government claims this is about growing the economy, yet the math reveals a different reality.

This is not a market player; it is a public dependency. When 97% of a company's revenue is derived from a single taxpayer-funded contract, that is not a commercial enterprise. That is a ward of the state. We are told that this is a burgeoning spaceport, yet look at the reality at Spaceport Nova Scotia this week. We are being asked to cheer for suborbital test flights that generate zero revenue and serve only as public relations demonstrations for a foreign firm. In this case, we have a launch happening very soon with T-Minus Engineering testing their technology on our soil. Who is T-Minus Engineering? It is a privately held Dutch company.

The government's position relies on the claim that we are buying capability, but are we really? How can this Liberal government claim to be buying capability when the regulatory framework to govern that very capability does not even yet exist? Now, the Minister of Transport had admitted in this House that we needed Bill C-28, the Canadian space launch act, to establish a proper framework.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are bypassing the legislative process, stretching the outdated Aeronautics Act to fit rocket science and pushing the machine forward without the very safety, environmental and financial guards they admit are necessary. Let me just say this again. Two foreign-owned, Dutch Barracuda rockets will be tested suborbitally, and they are paying no revenue to Maritime Launch Services. Through public disclosure, we can see that this is, again, a company 90% of whose revenue is from one single contract with the Government of Canada. The government claims this arrangement protects the national interest, but it is also ignoring that with these tests it is putting on right now and the launch pad, the Government of Canada bears the ultimate legal and financial liability.

As proposed within Bill C-28, the minister gets to pick what private operators are indemnified and what public taxpayers will pay in case of a catastrophic accident or spill over the ocean. Those things do happen. This would fall on the Government of Canada. Again, if these rockets fail, cause damage or contaminate our water, the responsibility does not reside with the public firm, which is the Dutch company I was mentioning, nor with MLS itself, but with the Canadian taxpayer. We are socializing the risk of catastrophic failure while privatizing the potential gain for shareholders and lobbyists.

Let me address now the financial absurdity at the heart of this deal. The provincial government lets this land for roughly $13,500 per year, yet, through this federal agreement, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 every single day of the year. This is not an investment. This is an excessive, indefensible transfer of wealth. While the public carries the liability, the corporate structure shows all the hallmarks of a venture designed to enrich the insiders rather than to launch satellites. We have seen massive share dilution, with hundreds of millions of shares issued while insiders reduce their own exposure.

The Liberals have been totally silent about this. This is not how a healthy, productive market behaves. This is an inversion of market principles, where the government is using public money to insulate a company from the rigours of competition, or from the risks that come from the business itself. The government's position is that we must pay this price to play this game. My position is that we are paying a premium so private corporations like MLS can play the game.

Some might ask why Conservatives are not ambitious enough, why we are not for the type of investment this represents for our space sovereignty. Well, ambition is not the issue here. We all want a robust Canadian space sector, but ambition without discipline is a policy of failure. By the government's own test, the capability is not demonstrated. The value is not realized. Ownership is absent, and the risk is entirely public. This is not an investment. This is an obligation with downside exposure. Canadians are paying up front, bearing the risk and carrying the liability for a capability that does not yet exist. We are being asked to trust the great machine as it grinds onward, indifferent to the taxpayer.

As Conservatives, we refuse to participate in this gamble with other people's money. For these reasons, we cannot support this allocation. Again, I would just remind the government that this is not a case of problem and solution, where the problem is a lack of space sovereignty and the solution is MLS. This solution has been imposed on the Canadian taxpayer. Conservatives will not support it, and we will fight against a government that puts its own needs and those of insiders before our sovereign ability to advance this field in a proper fashion.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I think we all need to understand is how important our sovereignty is and the fact that the government is not in the business of making money. It is in the business of facilitating and making sure each individual Canadian is well supported. The government right now has supported not only industry in these difficult times, but also individual Canadians, through things like the groceries and essentials benefit.

Does the member favour supporting Canadians, or is this a gimmick for him to just get a leg up in how we operate and more of a partisan issue as opposed to supporting Canadians?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating $20 million, one of 20 years' worth of payments that are going to a private company for an asset that we would never own. As I mentioned, in Norway, when they wanted to create sovereign space capacity, for approximately $30 million, they did it themselves. Here, we would be giving $200 million. I would ask the member opposite what $200 million could do in this economy. There are so many other priorities that would be better suited from here, but perhaps, if the Department of National Defence needs this capacity, it should own the asset, operate the asset and get the benefits to Canadians, not to MLS.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question to determine his party's position on a request that is very important to the Bloc Québécois and that was brought to me again yesterday. I was in the Magdalen Islands, and some seniors came to see me to ask about the status of the Bloc Québécois's request to increase the old age security pension for seniors aged 65 to 74.

This would cost just over $3 billion per year and would be good for our seniors, whose purchasing power has been eroded and who are not always in a position to earn more. What is my colleague's position on our request?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about $20 million that would be allocated from the Department of National Defence and given to a private company. As much as I appreciate the member's concern for seniors, the fact is that if we as an opposition, whether the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Greens or the Conservatives, simply talk about anything other than what the government is actually doing, it is taking our money and giving it to a private interest. There are already signs of huge profits being taken for a company that, a year ago, disclosed to its investors that it was not a going concern, meaning it was close to bankruptcy. I recognize that under the Liberals, not only are seniors close to bankruptcy but MLS was too. Where did the government choose to put its money in bailing out MLS versus seniors? That is what we are here to talk about, and that is what I will be talking about here tonight.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a weird day of events. Today we celebrated an astronaut who represents the pinnacle of the Canadian space program, and all members of the House were applauding that, as we should. However, Liberals are now trying to defend a tax boondoggle whereby a piece of land leased for $13,500 a year is being re-leased to the government for $20 million a year.

My question for my colleague is this: How important is it that we get full transparency and that the government releases all the documents around this deal to show Canadians exactly what happened there?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member is saying. The government has gone completely radio silent when it comes to transparency on this. It is claiming that MLS answers a problem it has not properly defined. As I said, in Norway they spent about $40 million to create their own infrastructure, which the people own. The Liberals would be giving $200 million of taxpayer money, financed by bondholders. We deserve answers. Maybe the member might want to go to the national defence committee and ask for a production order in relation to this.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to share my time with the hon. member, who so well articulated why this is an opposed item for His Majesty's loyal opposition.

I would like to start my remarks with a quote from the installation speech of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Louise Arbour, the 31st Governor General of Canada. This is a quote from the speech she gave in the other place this morning to assembled guests and dignitaries, as well as to all Canadians. She said:

Humanity has always sought to go further, to push the boundaries. And to go higher, as our Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen did on his mission into space.

How could anyone be anything other than awestruck by the thought that he set his eyes on places no other human being had ever seen before?

I say this with confidence: let us not slow our momentum toward progress out of fear of differences.

Extreme polarization is dangerous—but so is extreme consensus.

It is through our differences, and our fundamental right to express them, that we will nourish critical thinking, creativity and innovation. It is through our differences that we will build our common future.

As Canadians, we have the extraordinary privilege of living in a mature democracy. We benefit from strong institutions that allow different views to be expressed.

I offer that excerpt from the remarks of Her Excellency because it is regrettable that some who are new to this place do not know and some maybe have forgotten what it is that we are to do here and who we are doing it for. The act of opposition exercised by His Majesty's loyal opposition, and, in fact, by all members who are not in government, which is not the people in the governing party but members of the executive, is accountability. However, this discussion and debate, particularly around this $20 million annually or $200 million over 10 years, has been framed by some people, when Conservatives raise legitimate questions, as being an act of disloyalty, so let us get a couple of things clear.

Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil. That is a legitimate objective. Canada has a proud history in space, as noted by Her Excellency, in the recent successful journey of Colonel Jeremy Hansen, but there are also the Canadarm or Canadarm2; Marc Garneau, who was the first Canadian in space, in the year I was born, I would note; Roberta Bondar, who was the first Canadian woman in space; Chris Hadfield, a Canadian astronaut who commanded the International Space Station; and many men and women who have made extraordinary contributions to humanity's continued reach for the stars.

The Canadian Space Agency says that a commercial launch is “a natural evolution” for Canada's space sector, and I agree with this objective. The question is not whether Canada should pursue sovereign launch capability, as my hon. colleague noted previously. The question is whether taxpayers got good value for money in this $200‑million deal over 10 years, and we need to be clear about that. It is not about sovereign launch capability.

When Conservatives vote against, for example, a budget that includes spending on national defence, we hear the cries from Liberal members, “They hate the military,” and, “Why don't they love Canada?” That is an awful thing to hear.

I believe the Liberals actually know better. We all ran and were elected to serve the people of this great country, and there are more than a few of us who have put on the uniform to serve our country. I thank the men and women who came before us, and the men and women today who serve, not the least of whom are those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

This is not about disloyalty to Canada. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is about us exercising our responsibility to get accountability for taxpayers. We are the representation for that taxation, and we have asked very simple questions about the $20 million. The government announced a 10-year, $200-million agreement to lease one dedicated launch pad for a spaceport in Nova Scotia. The government says it is going to support DND, the Canadian Armed Forces, the wider Government of Canada, our allies and our partners. It said the pad must reach its initial operational capability by the end of 2026 and that 90% of the funds must be spent in Canada.

Those are important promises, but they raise basic accountability questions. Number one, how was the $200-million price tag determined? Number two, was there a competitive process, or was this a sole-source deal? Number three, what did taxpayers receive for the first year, given that Maritime Launch says the agreement is retroactive to April 1, 2025? It is being paid $20 million per year, and the first payment of $20 million was due before March 31, 2026. Number four, what milestones, holdbacks, clawbacks or cancellation rights protect taxpayers if the site is not ready by the end of 2026? Number five, what due diligence was done on Maritime Launch's financial position? Its 2025 annual filings refer to the spaceport as “under construction” and note that depreciation begins when the spaceport is available for use.

I am not here today to say that the project is bad or that the—

[An hon. member]

Yes, you are.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just came in, and he was not paying attention. He misses the entire point. He is the kind of person who comes in here and starts screaming about people being disloyal for doing their job of holding the Liberals accountable for $20 million. We love Canada. That is not something that they hold a licence on. We love this country. The hon. member, who put on a uniform for this country, knows better, and he should act better.

I would not say that this project is bad, but I would say that the Liberals have to demonstrate basic due diligence to Canadians. That is their responsibility. Parliament has to make sure that the money was handled properly. If everything was done properly, the government and the company should be able to show that. We invite them to do it. I would welcome them to do that, but they have not.

With that in mind, I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing the amount of “$17,968,133,395” with “$17,948,133,395”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not exactly know whether the Conservatives have something against Atlantic Canada or how they justify their positioning on Canada having an opportunity to launch things into space.

[An hon. member]

Shameful.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says “shameful” from across the way, but let us keep in mind that the Conservatives tend to oppose anything that the government wants to do. We have made a clear commitment to our Canadian Forces and to what will be taking place in the industrial development sector, whether it is in space or for our Canadian Forces, that whole 2%. The Conservatives, no matter what we seem to do, want to be negative and want to shoot it down.

Is there any aspect of the government expenditures that he actually approves of, whether it is for the forces or for the space launch centre?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have woken up the parliamentary secretary from his nap, but he missed the part of my speech where I said, “Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil.” That is a legitimate objective. He completely missed the entirety of the point of what we are doing here. The guy has been here a long time and does not seem to understand what we are supposed to do. We have to hold you guys accountable. We keep catching you giving Liberal insiders money.

Time and time again, we have caught these guys greasing the wheels with Liberal insiders. We support our Canadian Armed Forces. We support sovereign launch capabilities. They have got to show us receipts, not just hand $20 million out the door.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would remind members to ask questions through the Speaker but not directly to the Speaker. I would remind them to keep it within the rules of decorum as well.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Red Deer.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the question that my other colleague asked. The Province of Nova Scotia leased this land for approximately $13,500 per year, yet through this federal agreement, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 every single day of the year.

Will the member explain exactly how a 400,000% markup over the provincial lease rate serves the interest of the Canadian taxpayer?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the question that my hon. colleague has raised. This is what we have asked the government to demonstrate, and we are opposing the $20 million for this year's use because it has failed to do that. It is not about the aspiration. It is about the execution. What is the value for money that taxpayers are getting here? We are in lockstep with Canada's continued reach for the stars, but we have to see what we are getting for $20 million. Canadians expect that of us.

In fact, it is not $20 million. It is $200 million. Are there improvements being made to the site? What continued services do we get for that money? Is it an investment for Canadians or is this an investment in a private company, which is going to have the equity, and not Canada?

These are assurances that we need. We need to understand why and how, and for some reason, the government is refusing to demonstrate that to the House and to Canadians. That is why we oppose the expenditure.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is not part of the current debate is the clear disparity between the forestry industry and the oil and gas industry when it comes to the funds the government allocates to these two different industries.

The oil and gas industry gets billions of dollars in subsidies, while the forestry industry gets nothing. We know full well that the forestry industry is the industry best positioned to combat greenhouse gases and that the oil and gas industry is the industry that is most harmful to the planet.

Does my colleague think it makes sense that, year after year, budget after budget, appropriation after appropriation, we subsidize the industry that pollutes rather than the one that is better for the planet?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking to reconcile, of course, is how the government prioritizes its expenditures and how we could support sectors like our forestry sector if the government was not spending money on what it cannot demonstrate to us is not the rewarding of well-connected insiders, which is a pattern that we have seen with the Liberals. We want the receipts. We want them to support Canada's wonderful natural resources sector and also to support our military and launch capabilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. I am sure he will make very good use of that time.

Since we are talking about the estimates today, we can address any aspect of the use of public funds. I want to briefly revisit our disappointment regarding the implementation of the budget, Bill C-31, among others, and the lack of response to one of our main concerns.

There is something I do not understand. We keep saying that our SMEs need help. We also keep trying to explain to people in other Canadian provinces, in English-speaking Canada, that Quebec's economic fabric is unique because of its SMEs, which need support. We believe that the wage subsidy would be helpful in the current climate, given the new tariffs. However, we have not received a response. It is radio silence. There were no consultations before the budget measures were introduced.

The government continues to subsidize the oil industry at every opportunity. Once again, these bills give the government even more power, including discretionary powers, which, to be perfectly honest, are frightening.

Anyone who looked at the media this morning saw the news about crop protection products, herbicides and pesticides. I know what I am talking about, since I was the agriculture and agri-food critic for a long time. We studied these issues extensively at committee.

What we were seeing, particularly with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, which is now called the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, or PRD, was a lack of efficiency. Whenever there was an emergency on a farm and an emergency registration was requested, it got delayed. It can take years, because the staff are in no rush, because there are not enough resources, or for any number of reasons.

For three or four years, we had been studying the possibility of allowing drones to be used to spray pesticides, even though these same pesticides are already approved to be sprayed by plane. Planes spray pesticides at higher altitudes, over larger areas and using larger quantities. Logically, drone spraying will require a smaller quantity of pesticides and be able to focus on specific parts of the field. That is exactly what we want. It takes three or four years to approve that. We are scratching our heads and wondering why.

That is what we were calling out. What is the government doing now to address the problem? It is saying that when the PRD rejects a product, cabinet can decide to authorize it for economic reasons. This is a very slippery slope, one that is reminiscent of what we have seen in previous bills. In just about every bill we vote on, the government gives its ministers the power to override other laws.

This is extremely concerning. I do not believe that allowing cabinet to decide to authorize banned products will increase public confidence. We already use several products that are banned in Europe. What we need are resources and efficiency at the PRD and the CFIA. We must not give elected officials, who are not scientists, the power to authorize the use of toxic products.

Let us be honest: These products are used to kill pests or eliminate diseases. That is what they do. The people who apply these products are our farmers, the people who feed us. When products are banned, it is often not only because of their effects on the soil, but also because of the risks they pose to the people applying them.

What they are saying is, too bad, saving the crop is more important. I do not feel that we are reacting strongly enough to this change. I believe there is a major problem with undemocratic governance right now. The Liberal government continually grants itself the power to override the application of laws.

Things are not moving quickly enough in Canada. We are not efficient enough. It is not that complicated. The government is going to run this country like a business. If a law slows things down, then the government will get rid of it. That is what it is doing with the Alto high‑speed rail project.

If members watched the press scrums today, then they saw my leader's response. We have no choice but to oppose this project because it is being handled all wrong and because the government is infringing on the rights of our constituents. As the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, I cannot sit idly by while my constituents are treated like second‑class citizens because the government wants to run a train through their land and it wants the project to be completed quickly without any delays. The government is going to take away these citizens' right to speak to an independent hearing officer and their right to object to the price offered for the land.

What is more, the government knows that the railway may have to cross sensitive areas, such as the Lanoraie peat bog. It figured that with the high-speed rail project, it is easy. It just needed to add a line to the bill stating that an environmental assessment is not required. That is how Canada is being run right now. I think the public will eventually realize this, as this bad habit of granting absolute powers continues to repeat itself. We are drifting away from democracy. That is what I think.

Parliaments have passed laws over the years. I am not saying we should not adapt our laws. I am not saying we should not review and assess them regularly. If 28 regulations have been added and none have ever been removed, perhaps one or two could make way for the new ones that address the same issue. That is possible. However, we need to be smart about this. We need to take our time. The opposition parties need to be consulted. We need to have healthy, thorough debates. That is not what is happening right now.

Instead, time allocation is imposed, so we do not have enough time. It is being rushed through. They want to go on vacation. It is summer, and it is almost time to wrap up our work, but the government still wants to get its seven, eight, 10 or 12 bills passed. That means we have to stay until midnight and get it done. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

I dream of a world where election campaigns last a month and a half, like they are supposed to, and where, in between elections, elected officials work together for the common good. In that world, the party in power would not be able to negotiate with members to secure a majority and then do whatever it wants without consulting anyone else. That is what we are currently experiencing. That is what I am experiencing, and it is dangerous.

I have said it before, but I will say it again and again, because it seems that some members on the other side of the House are not listening. The Bloc Québécois is a constructive opposition. We do not just sit around whining. We have come up with proposals. One good idea would be to eliminate the oil subsidies. The Liberals are listening to us so much that they are increasing that funding.

There are wage subsidies, as I mentioned earlier. There is EI reform. When people lose their jobs, 40% of them are ineligible for benefits. That is outright theft because they have paid into the system. They are required to do so, but they do not qualify. It would be like me charging people for home insurance while telling them I will never pay out. I am not sure they would keep paying me for long, unless they did not check their bills. We do check them. There are the cheques that were sent out during the election campaign, for which we have requested reimbursement. There is the influx of refugees we took in.

I am going to talk about agriculture again, because I miss it a little. I saw the UPA people today at their press conference opposing high‑speed rail. They have a point. Research centres have been closed. The government should be investing in research and innovation, not making cuts. At a time when cabinet is being given the power to approve whatever crop protection products it wants, the agencies responsible for regulating and approving them are facing cuts. What should be happening is the opposite. Personally, I dream of a government that makes agriculture a priority. The fact that less than 1% of the budget goes to agriculture in a country like Canada is shameful. It should be at least 2%. Agriculture is the foundation for everything. Defence is about to get 5%.

Do members know how cities were captured in the Middle Ages? They were not attacked; they were encircled, and the besieging army simply waited until all the food inside was gone. That is the way a territory is weakened. It may have the best army in the world, but if it does not have the means to feed it, if it does not have free-flowing international trade and is not self-sufficient when it comes to food, it will have a big problem.

We need to make wise choices and, for goodness' sake, stop this shift toward authoritarianism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that through the whole estimates process, the government has given a great deal of attention to the issues of agriculture and, in particular, taxation. The member made reference to how we could support making things more affordable. Just last Friday, we dealt with the issue of providing the groceries and essentials benefit program, supporting 11 million Canadians. There is more. We could talk about the fuel excise tax. Fuel costs 10¢ less a litre.

If the member was fair in his assessment, he would realize that, in many ways, the government is there to support the issue of affordability with regard to agriculture, whether it is canola out west or providing export opportunities—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite his poor reasoning, I still find the parliamentary secretary quite likeable. If he were being fair, he would admit that the excise tax exemption is lining the pockets of oil companies. That is what we have always said, and it is what we have been saying for years: The government needs to stop giving these companies tax breaks. They are vultures. They will siphon off every last bit.

The government keeps talking about the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, but this is simply a rebranding of the family allowance. This is not all new funding. Yes, the amounts have increased. However, does the government know a good way to stimulate the economy, get it moving and help people who really need it? It involves indexing the OAS for people aged 65 to 74, just as it is for those aged 75 and over.

I am being told that $3 billion a year is too expensive, but it would seem that $200 billion for high-speed rail is not too expensive. I do not know which is more important to the Liberals, but these people need money, and I am talking about less than $100 a month.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He mentioned the Alto high-speed rail project between Quebec City and Toronto. For years and years, there were plans for a high-frequency train, but then an outgoing prime minister waved a magic wand and suddenly it became a high-speed train.

My colleague raised a very important point. Land is currently being expropriated in a place that already has an extremely painful history with expropriation: Mirabel. The folks at Alto could not have done a worse job of handling this than they are doing now. Can the member, who represents an agricultural riding, tell us what impact it has on farmers when the government irresponsibly expropriates land?