Debates of Sept. 24th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is certainly right that there are concerns with the legislation. A major concern with the legislation is it is not going to deliver what it says it is going to deliver. We saw that in the past. We see that with the Major Projects Office. We see that with Bill C-5. Now we see it potentially with Bill C-39.

As I said before, we are going to take the time to scrutinize the legislation and look for pieces in the legislation that we can improve. Once it gets to that legislative committee, we are going to propose the amendments necessary to actually get shovels in the ground instead of promises into people's pockets.

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

Madam Speaker, over the summer, the government consulted with labour, unions and different organizations. Federal unions have been calling for section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to be removed after governments, especially the Liberal government, have used it to order workers back to work and undermine their collective bargaining rights.

The government is proposing new language, as we know, around section 107, and calling these changes “guardrails”. However, unions are telling us these changes could actually weaken workers' bargaining power. Organized labour still has no answer on who brought these ideas forward and who asked for these changes.

The Conservatives are saying they are friends with labour. Do they support these changes or do they know who asked for these changes?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is not about whether we are friends with labour. It is about whether labour supports a party that supports it. In the last election, it certainly came over in droves and the member knows it.

I wish the member would speak this vigorously against the inflation that is driving down the paycheques of every single worker in this country. I wish he would stand up for labour when it comes to the fact that its buying power is not nearly as much because of the government's spending. I wish he would stand up for labour.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has been known for the phrase, “We will build at speeds not seen in generations”. The last time the government promised speeds not seen in generations, it was with Bill C-5. The Major Projects Office, 18 months later, has issued zero permits and zero workers are on the ground.

What good is this bill if the first one did not get anything built?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the Liberals' past behaviour is any indication of their future behaviour, I am not sure we have much to look forward to. As an opposition, we are going to fight to get projects built and we are going to fight for every single Canadian to live an affordable life in this country.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, is a crosscutting piece of legislation that would unlock Canada's maritime potential, reduce supply chain restraints at our major international trade gateways and position the Canadian maritime sector to enable our ambitious trade diversification agenda to double Canada's non-U.S. exports within a decade. Our government's trade diversification strategy is working. In 2025 alone, Canada's exports to non-U.S. markets increased by 11.1%, reaching 32.8% of total Canadian exports, the highest share in over four decades.

Canada's ports are the gateways that make things happen, bringing Canadian products to markets around the world and building Canada's economic sovereignty. In order to meet our objectives and double our non-U.S. trade, it is essential that we have reliable, efficient and secure marine transportation systems to connect Canada to the foreign markets that want Canadian grain, Canadian energy or the thousands of other products that we proudly produce in this country.

Let me start by discussing Canada's port authorities. Canada's port authorities are at the heart of global trade for Canada and transport networks serving as critical nodes that connect Canadian businesses, Canadian farmers and Canadian producers to key international markets. Collectively, the 17 Canada port authorities facilitate the movement of containerized bulk and energy products that underpin our economic growth. To ensure that Canada port authorities are positioned to enable trade diversification and have the flexibility to react to changing international trade patterns, the building Canada strong act would give port authorities the tools and financial flexibility to operate within an increasingly complex marine environment, while ensuring greater transparency and accountability for marine terminals, shippers and other port users.

The proposed amendments in this bill would enable Canada port authorities to become commercially oriented and empower them to attract the investment capital necessary to build the next generation of Canadian marine terminals such as Roberts Bank Terminal 2 at the port of Vancouver and Contrecœur at the port of Montreal. To support these types of generational infrastructure projects, the proposed bill would facilitate corridor-level planning to better situate commodities and ensure that Canada port authorities are working together rather than competing with each other for similar business lines.

The proposed legislation would also enhance the ability of Canada port authorities to act on commercial opportunities and generate revenue by allowing joint ventures with private and public entities as well as enabling increased collaboration between port authorities. Other amendments would support improvements to the borrowing processes for Canada port authorities and reduce regulatory burden to allow for one project, one review, while others would close data and information gaps.

With these proposed tools and financial opportunities, it is more important now than ever to ensure that those in leadership positions at Canada port authorities have the right technical and business-oriented skill sets to set strategic direction and strengthen existing operations. This is why the bill would modernize the governance of our ports through new skill matrices for appointments. Taken together, these proposals would enhance the fiscal and governance tools available to Canada port authorities while ensuring that port authority boards are properly equipped to invest in critical port infrastructure to meet and exceed Canada's export trade goals.

Ensuring that Canada port authorities have the right governance and operational tools is only part of the equation. To remain competitive and meet the growing trade demands, ports must also be able to attract and leverage investments to modernize infrastructure, expand capacity and strengthen supply chain resilience. Given the critical nature of our port facilities, these investments need to bring tangible benefits to the country and serve the best interests of Canada and Canadians.

Currently, under the Canada Transportation Act, the Minister of Transport can review investments, acquisitions and mergers involving transportation undertakings that are at or above $93 million. Although the threshold captures major investment, it would not capture situations such as when a series of smaller investments cumulatively results in a large foreign investment in specific terminals or marine assets. As such, the government is proposing to broaden the scope of transactions eligible for review by reducing the notification threshold to $10 million to ensure these investments involve transportation undertakings and are in the interest and at the heart of Canadians.

We must also ensure that the government is well positioned to respond to emerging threats and risk to marine transportation systems. This very important. Security events can have a significant impact on port and marine operations, which impact the efficiency and reliability of Canada's supply chains. Concerns over security issues, including a dated regime, can lead to the perception that Canada is a weak link. Such perception could adversely affect Canada's relations with other trading partners and have a significant impact on future opportunities for economic growth and development.

Canada's marine system needs a modern security framework to adapt and respond to increasingly complex challenges. The proposals in this bill would provide the government with a modern suite of authorities and tools to effectively administer Canada's marine security framework and respond to emergency security threats. Information sharing would be enhanced across marine security partners and allow the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with third parties and other departments to increase enforcement capacity and ensure critical provisions, such as cybersecurity protections, are being effectively met by the operators. Together, this would promote a more effective response to marine security threats and risks.

Through this bill, we would also be seeking to equip the Government of Canada with new tools to support stable and continued operations at the St. Lawrence Seaway. These new tools would give the government needed authorities to safeguard seaway operations in exceptional circumstances to protect operational continuity for this important sector. This includes authorities aimed at reducing disruptions to navigation, such as the authority to appoint an administrator in place of the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation board in certain circumstances, and requirements to terminate the operator agreements, supported by the structure and dispute resolution when needed.

As we modernize and backstop the St. Lawrence Seaway, it is equally important that the Government of Canada have the tools necessary to respond quickly and effectively to emerging challenges across the marine transportation system. The building Canada strong act, therefore, complements the measures for the seaway and Canada port authorities by giving the Minister of Transport the power to respond to situations where there is an immediate, imminent and serious threat to ports, the seaway or supply chains. The ministerial order power would allow the minister to safeguard supply chains during a crisis. This could include, for example, pandemics, trade disputes, global conflicts or natural disasters. An order made under these provisions might require a port or the seaway operator to take any measure, including corrective measures, that the minister considers necessary to prevent or mitigate a threat, but would not be used in the event of a labour action or strike.

These measures directly respond to the needs of Canada port authorities. Ports across the country support this plan. The Association of Canadian Port Authorities has applauded the government for focusing on the transportation system and creating the conditions for investment in the infrastructure Canada needs.

This bill is a practical and forward-looking piece of legislation that recognizes the critical role Canada's marine transportation system plays in supporting economic growth, trade diversification and national supply chain resilience. By modernizing the governance and financial frameworks of Canada port authorities, strengthening oversight of transportation investments and equipping the Minister of Transport with targeted tools to respond to emerging threats, this legislation would help ensure Canada's marine gateway to remain competent, competitive, secure and efficient.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, The Economy; the hon. member for Riding Mountain, Health; the hon. member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Public Services and Procurement.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to hear the parliamentary secretary speak on Bill C-39 today. Specifically in part 3, there is a provision in regard to geographic certification.

As I know the parliamentary is well briefed and well versed on all the things that are in this bill, could he please explain to the Canadian public exactly what the significant changes are to geographic certification and whether or not the Minister of Justice will be tabling a charter statement on Bill C-39, particularly section 3, on behalf of the government?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see the member, whom we spend a lot of time with in committee, here today to ask that question.

I will leave it to the justice minister to talk about that, but when it comes to this particular piece of legislation, the very fact that we are looking at regional trade corridors is really important for developing growth and a systemic and integrated plan for supply chains with Canadian jobs and workers for Canadian businesses and all Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but despite what my colleagues have been saying for a while, they are trying to downplay the impact on labour rights. We are being told that environmental rights are not being rolled back.

I think that environmental and labour groups will do their job and that, when we measure the scope of all this, we will truly realize that we have a government that is undermining democracy.

In addition to a crushing rollback of workers' democratic rights and environment laws, there is also an encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions. What is more, the government is not respecting jurisdictions.

The Liberal government is creating a new and umpteenth transportation structure: the national trade corridors council. What does that mean? We in the Bloc Québécois refuse to allow the federal government to subject businesses to rules when, once again, they do not fall under its jurisdiction over transportation.

In the end, we are really going backwards. What does he have to say about this jurisdictional encroachment?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Madam Speaker, one thing that seems to be missing over the last four days is the “why”. Why are we doing this? The Prime Minister spoke to it at Davos when he talked about a rupture in the economy and how the only thing we can control is what we can control as a country. That means working with the provinces, with Canadian businesses and indeed with Canadian workers to ensure that we are evolving our economy and putting the steps in place to make sure that happens. That does not happen without Canadian workers, unionized workers. I come from Cape Breton Island. Cape Breton Island was built on unionized workers; so was Canada and so will Canada.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Madam Speaker, for me, the underlying sentiment of this bill is about unity. It is about Canadians coming together regardless of political affiliation or background and understanding that it is a pivotal time for our country to have national unity.

Just a few moments ago, the opposition member for Thornhill mentioned the lasting legacy of former prime minister Stephen Harper. Former prime minister Harper delivered closing remarks at the Canada investment summit recently. I would like to ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, what he thinks it means to Canadians and what it means to him and the people in his riding that a former Conservative prime minister delivered remarks with such an undercurrent of unity, of coming together for Canada and of support for the investment summit that was held by our Prime Minister?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will go back to Cape Breton for a second to tie this together. My father was in charge of mine rescue for about 35 years. He trained the individuals who went underground to save or recover folks, and he often talked about the idea that crisis reveals character. I see with leadership here in the House and leadership outside of the House, and I will give former prime minister Harper his due, that crisis reveals character.

We are at an inflection point in this country that requires all of us to come together and work together. That does not mean we cannot be questioned, but cynicism never created a business, cynicism never built a house, cynicism never fed a hungry child and cynicism is not what is going to build this country.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I feel like I have been here before, because we debated a bill that was supposed to get things built about 18 months ago, and not only get things built, but get things built at speeds we had never seen before. Unfortunately, what we saw were things getting built at the exact same speed they have been built for 11 years under the Liberal government. Not a single new project was approved by the so-called Major Projects Office and not a single new shovel was put in the ground.

Here we are again. We are back. We are looking at another Liberal piece of legislation that is supposed to accelerate building in this country, but if we go back to Bill C-5, let us also not forget that it was supposed to be the One Canadian Economy Act. It was supposed to remove interprovincial trade barriers, all of that by July 1, 2025. The last time I checked, we are in September 2026, and all of the interprovincial trade barriers are still there, which brings us to where we are today.

The Liberal government is all talk, no results. I will give the Liberals this. They are very good at the talk part. There are lots of photo ops, lots of announcements and lots of fancy backdrops making it look like they are building something that get taken down a few days later. They are very good at all of that, but when it comes to actually delivering for Canadians, this is where the rubber hits the road and they significantly fail.

What we have seen in this country is an inflationary and cost of living crisis that this country has never seen before. Every single day, Conservative members get up in the House of Commons to ask questions based on conversations they have had with real Canadians, people who are struggling every single day to put food on the table and struggling every single day to pay their rent or mortgage. That is the legacy of the government, not the fancy photo ops and not the fancy words that ministers get up to say in the House of Commons day after day.

What I want to talk about in particular today is part 3 of this gigantic omnibus piece of legislation. I want to start off by saying this. Canada has never seen more labour disruptions in 40 years than it has under the Liberal government. Do members want to know why? A huge part of it is the cost of living crisis created by the Liberal government, with the terrible management of the economy over the last 11 years that has led to workers all across this country, our friends and neighbours, fighting hard for better wages so they can put food on the table. What we saw were labour and unions fighting for better wages, better benefits and things for their members, and fighting hard.

Because of the ham-fisted approach of the Liberal government, labour relations in this country have never been worse. We saw record use of section 107 by the Liberals. I lost count of that. They used it 13 times in 18 months or something like that. They often used it pre-emptively. In fact, they used it pre-emptively on flight attendants who were fighting to get rid of unpaid work. Think about that for a second.

[An hon. member]

Untrue.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is saying that is untrue. Let me take a moment to educate the member.

I have met with flight attendants. I have met with flight attendant unions. They have unpaid work, unlike what the minister said in this House and at committee about looking into whether or not flight attendants provide unpaid work. Do members know what the head of the airline union said to that? He asked if they will look into whether water is wet next. This is legitimately where we are on that subject.

The Liberals used section 107 to order flight attendants back to work, using the Canada Industrial Relations Board and their section 107 order before the strike had even happened, therefore effectively sending them back to work unpaid. That is their record. Now they are going to make more changes to section 107. Do members know what I and just about every single union in this country have to say about that? We do not trust them. We do not trust their changes. They are making changes to section 107 at a time when the use of section 107, the constitutionality of it, is being challenged in court. They know this, and they decided to go ahead and make changes anyway.

The changes to the legislation are embedded in a giant omnibus piece of legislation in which one section has nothing to do with the other sections. There are significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. For example, my colleague asked about the changes to geographic certification. The Liberal parliamentary secretary had no idea what geographic certification was and could not comment on the changes to geographic certification.

I can say this. The changes to geographic certification are significant. There used to be a process through the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It was a complicated change. It took time. Two businesses could now petition the Canada Industrial Relations Board to create a geographic certification. What will be the effect of that? We have no idea. Will it cause, in fact, more labour strife as some union locals are combined? Could a union local represented by one union be combined with a union local from another union? I do not know. Perhaps it could. Do the Liberals know? Have they looked into this?

When we look at the omnibus nature of this piece of legislation, we have to ask ourselves why. Why have they decided to put these significant changes to the Canada Labour Code in a gigantic omnibus piece of legislation? I hope it is not because they plan to ram this piece of legislation through committee with their majority, as they have done with other pieces of legislation, so there is no proper study of the changes they are making to the Canada Labour Code. I do not know, but I will go back to what I said when I first started talking about the changes they are making to the Canada Labour Code. I do not trust them.

I forget the number of pages in this piece of legislation, 425 pages or 285 pages, but I suspect that all of that is going to go to one committee. How long will it look at the changes that are being made? Is it one day, two days, maybe a week? Give me a break.

The Liberals are doing this so there can be very little scrutiny of what they are doing. They are doing this so that union members will not have the opportunity to come to committee and make their case for why the changes being made are a problem. They are doing this to make it difficult for opposition parties, and members of the Canadian public when they get in touch with their members of Parliament, to put forward amendments to this piece of legislation.

I do not play the lottery and do not bet on sports, but I will tell members this. I am going to bet on the idea that this piece of legislation will not get the proper study at committee. The Liberals will rush this through committee. They will use their majority in the chamber to make sure that the bill gets out of committee as quickly as possible and that it is not studied in detail.

They think they can pull one over on Canadians. Well, we on the Conservative side are going to fight. We are going to fight to make sure that this legislation gets studied. We are going to fight to make sure that the people who are going to be affected by this legislation get to come to committee and that the Liberals hear what these changes are going to do to them. We will be with those people every step of the way.

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

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the bill will ultimately get to committee. We look forward to what the different stakeholders might have to say on the legislation. We look forward to what degree the Conservatives will position themselves on the legislation. I would like to think they would be inclined to support the legislation, or at the very least the principle of the legislation. We will see that at second reading.

At the end of the day, it is all about building a stronger and healthier Canada. What we need to do is take advantage of a lot of the work that the Prime Minister and cabinet have been doing over the last 18 months. Whether it is on trade or investments, we are talking about a significant amount of positive change that is coming to Canada. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know this segment is called questions and comments, and that was mostly a comment. I am not sure what the question is, because as I said, we want to study the legislation. I will turn it into a question for the member: Will the Liberals allow the legislation to be studied? At the member's next opportunity, will he get up today and tell the House that the Liberals are going to allow as much study on the legislation as necessary to make sure it is fully studied and fully understood? Will the Liberals commit to that?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his remarks, his comments and his speech.

Since he was elected in 2025, we have seen this Prime Minister acting as if he could not care less about parliamentary procedure. He has his objective, so he is going ahead and trampling on just about every established procedure and tradition, and that is very worrisome.

This bill raises some serious concerns about democracy. My colleagues talked about this earlier. Yes, this bill will end up in committee. Yes, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois will make suggestions to improve this bill as much as possible, since it goes much too far in many areas. We have been pointing that out from the beginning. However, this government, with its arrogant attitude and its manufactured majority, will probably adopt the same attitude in committee.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me and whether he shares my concern that the work we will have to do on this very serious bill, with its far-reaching consequences, will ultimately amount to very little progress in committee because of this arrogant government.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member. The Prime Minister has shown remarkable contempt for Parliament. He shows up to answer barely any questions in the chamber. The Liberals ram pieces of legislation through. They use programming motions to make sure there is very little debate on them.

We have received no commitment from the Liberals that there will be ample days to study the bill at committee. I would love to get a commitment that says that if we want 25 or 30 witnesses from the union movement to come talk about this piece of legislation, the Liberals will agree that they would all get to give their comments before they rush it through committee. We have heard none of these things, and the silence on that is deafening. I suspect we will once again see that they do not have respect for the parliamentary process. They will rush the bill through to committee and leave it the way it is without amendments.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives are winning the argument. When Stephen Harper took office as prime minister of this country, he argued that we needed to diversify our market away from the United States, so he went on a tear to sign 43 free trade agreements around the world. Now we see that the Liberal government has finally come to its senses and has started to adopt the Conservative narrative, at least, on these things. What would the member like to see done?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that this is not the same Liberal Party it was a few years ago, which was constantly trying to beat down resource projects. Imagine, if it had actually approved things like energy east, what position we would be in. Imagine if it had built LNG liquefaction facilities across the country. Europe is begging for that. It took it 10 years, but I guess, as we say, a broken clock is right twice a day. We are happy that the government has seen the light on some of these things, and hopefully we will build a better, stronger and more resilient Canada that exports our resources around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives consistently want to go back to the Trudeau era. If they want to go back and do a comparison, they should do a nine-year comparison to Stephen Harper when he was prime minister and the manufacturing sector that lost a quarter of a million jobs in that sector. They can contrast that even to the years that the Conservatives dream of all the time: the Justin Trudeau years. At least there was growth in the manufacturing industry.

If we get over the facts of the past and start focusing on where we are today and what we have been able to accomplish since the last federal election, members opposite will get a better understanding of why this legislation is so critically important to pass. It is because all Canadians in all regions of the country would benefit through the legislation. It is all about the theme going right from the election through to post-election and to this very day, which is to build a stronger, healthier Canada and an economy that works for all Canadians, and to protect our social programs, as the Prime Minister has done with several programs.

The Prime Minister and the cabinet have been aggressively pursuing the issue of expanding Canada's economy beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. Unlike the Conservatives, we do take the issue very seriously, to the degree that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to appealing to the world. The Minister of International Trade and others, such as the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, continuously are in different countries, and are working within Canada, to attract opportunities for small businesses, and it is paying off in a very significant way.

More than 20 trade and security agreements have been signed in the last 18 months. We have other trading opportunities. The Minister of International Trade is someone for whom I have an immense amount of respect and for whom I have done a lot of lobbying in regard to the Canada-Philippine trade agreement. I want a Canada-Philippine trade agreement. I was glad when we had the opportunity to meet with President Marcos over a lunch with the Prime Minister and those two leaders recognized that maybe 2026 can be the year for trade. The Prime Minister was also having discussions with the leadership in India, saying that we want to achieve that trade agreement, ideally even in the year 2026.

Expanding those trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S. border is good for all of Canada. At the end of the day, that is how we are going to be able to protect our sovereignty. That is the way we are going to be able to ensure continual growth, protect important jobs that Canadians have and build upon this.

These are difficult times with the relationship between Canada and the United States. The issue of Trump, tariffs and trade should be on our minds, because it is on the minds of constituents and on the minds of all Canadians, because it does have a real, tangible economic impact. We do not deny that. We recognize that, but we are not going to capitulate. We are still going to fight for the best deal we can with the United States, but we are not going to surrender sovereignty in any way in dealing with a final agreement, and we are going to continue to look at ways that we can not only enhance trade opportunities but also attract investment to Canada.

There has not been a prime minister, I would argue, in the history of this country who has generated as much potential commitment to investment in Canada from outside Canada and has even retained some of the pension funds that have been flowing outside Canada. We are talking about billions of dollars, maybe half a trillion dollars, of investments, all within 18 months. It is more than just the government. I will concede that it has a lot to do with relationships. We have a Prime Minister who has an A++ relationship and background to be able to protect the interests of Canadians and to talk to other world leaders, whether in the political or financial investment areas.

We had a good sense of that just a couple of weeks ago in downtown Toronto. Toronto was open to the world on behalf of Canada, and individuals, investors, premiers and indigenous leaders attended. There was a great deal of input involved in making sure our very first investment summit, which was an invitation to the world, was a success, and it was. We can think of it in terms of half a trillion dollars. Can any member of the House stand up to indicate whether, over an 18-month period of time, any prime minister in Canadian history has attracted that kind of investment commitments?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is commitments to invest. That is an important point; I recognize that.

If we travel outside Canada, as I know many members do, Canada is looked at in a very positive way. People are looking to Canada, in a way they have not in many generations, as a place to invest in, and hopefully we will see that all materialize. That is what I want, that is what this government wants and that is what many of the stakeholders want.

We have seen people take off their partisan hats in order to make sure that this team Canada is going to work. Stephen Harper was a guest speaker at the summit and gave closing remarks. Premiers from different political parties participated. From my home province of Manitoba, Premier Wab Kinew not only participated by trying to get people to invest in the port of Churchill but also provided a tax incentive so investors prepared to invest in the port of Churchill would not have to pay sales tax.

In terms of the port of Churchill, the Arctic Gateway Group is actually leading the charge. It actually comes from OneNorth, the owners. OneNorth is made up of 41 indigenous and northern communities from Manitoba and, I think, maybe one of the territories. This is something that has brought people together, recognizing that it is going to take a team Canada approach to build Canada strong.

We can think in terms of the Major Projects Office. There are over two dozen major projects. The Major Projects Office opened just last year. I think it was in September 2025. It is already talking about billions of dollars in tangible investments. There are projects that deal with everything from mining to the port of Montreal, which I know, Madam Speaker, you would be happy to hear about, and to nuclear energy.

There are all forms of projects out there. We have all come together and listed them off, and we are going to continue to push for them. We hope to see the Conservative Party onside.