Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply  Madam Speaker, the member spent much of his time disparaging the official opposition. Yes, this is politics, and I understand that, but what was most offensive about his remarks were the suggestions that the opposition does not care about mental health and that the previous government did nothing about mental health.

Public Safety  Mr. Speaker, Canada must say “no” to Huawei. Yesterday, The Washington Post reported that Huawei was promoting facial and voice recognition software that would help it track shoppers, monitor political dissidents and manage re-education camps. This is appalling. While Canada’s most trusted allies are banning Huawei from their networks, the government refuses to act.

Public Safety  Mr. Speaker, for three years, the government has promised to have a decision “within a few weeks”. Our own intelligence agencies have warned the Prime Minister against allowing Huawei into our 5G networks. It turns out, they were right. For years, Huawei denied that it was a tool of the Communist regime in Beijing.

Disaster Assistance  Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister this again and this time I would like a real answer. He decided that only the Red Cross is worthy of receiving matching funding, yet B.C. has been devastated by this flooding disaster. Thousands are without homes. We need all hands on deck. The Salvation Army, the MCC, Archway, Samaritan's Purse, the United Way, the Abbotsford Disaster Relief Fund and even the churches and gurdwaras all stepped up to help, yet all have been snubbed by the minister.

Public Safety  Mr. Speaker, failing to act is compromising national security. Last month, the minister met with President Biden's technology adviser to collaborate and talk about national security. There was a lot of talk but no action by the minister. Meanwhile, our telecoms have spent close to a billion dollars on Huawei equipment and now want to have taxpayers compensate them for that.

Public Safety  Mr. Speaker, last week, I asked the government when it would make a decision on banning Huawei. I have received no answer, so I am going to try again. Canada's most trusted security partners, including the U.S., have banned the use of Huawei technology in their 5G networks. Our country is the only one yet to say no to Huawei.

Public Safety  Mr Speaker, Canada’s most trusted partners, the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, have all banned Huawei equipment from their 5G networks because of espionage and national security concerns, yet there is one country that stands alone in not having said no to Huawei. It is Canada.

Public Safety  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's kind words, but he needs to pay attention to this file. It is time he banned Huawei. All of our allies have banned Huawei, yet Canada stands all alone in waffling on the issue. For over two years, the government has promised a decision, which is going to come in a couple of weeks.

House debate  Mr. Speaker, I think the member is rewriting history. I was there, as he was, but I was on the government side. I have reviewed that agreement very carefully, and I was responsible for renegotiating or extending it for two years when it expired. First, the lumber industry across Canada embraced this agreement.

House debate  Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to answer that. The softwood agreement expired shortly before the election. It was in October 2015 that it expired. In fact, our Liberal friends across the way were making all kinds of promises about how they would extend and renew the agreement. They said they had a much better relationship with the United States.

House debate  Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member recalls that back when the softwood lumber agreement was negotiated and settled under a previous Conservative government, every softwood lumber province across the country had agreed with it. All producers across the country were onside. Industry was onside.

House debate  Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by saying that I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill. I would like to provide the counterpoint to what we have just heard from the Liberal side, because we have to distinguish fiction from fact. The truth is, there is a long history to this dispute, going way back to at least 1982.

Disaster Assistance  Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced that the government would match flood relief donations only for the Red Cross. Local agencies with actual boots on the ground that are helping displaced families have been denied matching funding. The Salvation Army, the Mennonite Central Committee, Archway and churches are feeding and housing victims and cleaning up the mess left behind by the floods, yet none will receive matching funding.

Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change responded to a question. He was not in the House physically. He was present here by virtual Parliament. We have a rule in the House. I believe it is a rule that has been consistently applied that props are not to be used by those of us speaking in the House.

Flooding in British Columbia  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from British Columbia on his fine speech. I want to address the issue of the cost: Billions of dollars of infrastructure will be required to address the very real flooding dangers in the area where we both live and represent our constituents.