TranslatePolitics.ca

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 1:20 p.m.

“I want to fill time with kind words about a colleague who is leaving politics.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before speaking to Bill C-30, I would like to take a moment to talk about a colleague. As we know, politics is not always easy on the politician's loved ones. It is not always easy on their family. No matter what party they belong to, a life in politics comes with a heavy personal toll. Last Monday, we learned that the MNA for Mirabel, Sylvie D'Amours, who is not part of my political family, was leaving politics after three terms. I want to take a minute to pay tribute to her. For 12 years, she has made many sacrifices to serve her constituents. I have gotten to know her family—her husband and some of her children—and I know that, in her own way, she has always cared deeply about her community—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 1:20 p.m.

“I want to complain that the government is shutting down debate on a bill. I don't like how they are handling it. I think the government is blocking its own bill because they don't want to discuss parts of it. They are giving themselves power to approve any pesticide without scientific analysis. I want more debate and scrutiny on this bill.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is a shame that I was interrupted. I was saying that she cares about her community. She is a wonderful person. I hope she enjoys a rest, and I wish her every success in her future endeavours. I think that it is well deserved. I think that we should take time to acknowledge the work of elected officials from all parties who are close to their communities. It is very important to me to do this today, especially since this may be the last time that I speak in the House before we adjourn. Now that that is done, we are discussing closure. Madam Speaker, I should say that I would like to share my time with the member for Rimouski—La Matapédia. Closure is being imposed. Today, we are once again faced with a government that has decided to shut down debate and impose its agenda. This is the second time in a very short period that closure has come up, along with super closure. Last time, I said that the government had bought itself a majority. Since getting that majority, it has used it to go against the interests of taxpayers and the public in many respects. For one thing, it used it to impose closure on the Driver Inc. issue. This was at a time when the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was attending events organized by the very people at the centre of this scandal, which has cost lives. The government used its majority to halt debate on an ethical issue involving the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, whose wife is Alto's vice-president. I am not saying that anything inappropriate happened, only that the matter deserves some discussion. Closure has been imposed on several bills by a government that is having trouble managing its agenda. That is what has happened here, with Bill C‑30. The Liberals are going to keep saying that Parliament is at a standstill and that the opposition parties are to blame. The government was a minority during the 44th and 45th Parliaments, and back then, the Liberals kept saying that the opposition parties were using their majority to paralyze the work of the House. Now we are dealing with a majority government that constantly chooses to shut down debate and impose its agenda. I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. I attended the debate on Bill C‑30. Did things get out of hand? Was there filibustering? Of course there was, as there often is. However, when the Liberals say that there were 30 hours of debate and that the opposition filibustered for 30 hours, some clarification is in order. Starting from the very first amendment, the very first minute and even the very first second of the committee meeting, the Liberal Party decided to block everything. The Liberals made this very, very clear to the committee: No amendments would be allowed, and the bill would not be discussed. This was clearly stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the member for Whitby. If I recall correctly, the first amendment was intended to obtain more detailed data on the Canada pension plan. Since I am from Quebec, my public pension plan is with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, so none of this concerned me personally. However, I thought it was reasonable. Officials were at the meeting in person. They told us it was possible to make a change to make it entirely feasible, but the government said the data would never be available. That is when we realized that the government was going to hold this up until the very end and that it did not want to debate the matter. The Green Party member, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, attended the full 30 hours of committee meetings. She was waiting for the opportunity to debate the issue of pesticides. The fact is that the government is using an omnibus bill to grant itself the power to authorize any pesticide. The Green Party member stayed until she was completely exhausted and, after seeing the government's behaviour, she realized that she would not have the opportunity to debate this. Why, then, is this being blocked? It is being blocked because the government does not want Bill C-30 to be debated. My colleague from Rimouski—La Matapédia is going to talk about pesticides. We have known for years that the process for approving new pesticide formulations needs to be expedited. The scientific analyses need to be conducted more quickly. The process needs to be more efficient. That is what the industry is calling for. It is asking for things to move faster. However, no farmer has ever asked the government to approve any old pesticide behind closed doors without any scientific analysis. The agricultural industry has never asked for that. To avoid debating the subject, the government decided to block its own bill, like it did when it had a minority. When it comes to air passenger complaints, what the government is doing under division 17 is serious. From now on, air passenger complaints will no longer be dealt with by a public entity. If the Minister of Transport, who is not known for his transparency, so decides, air passenger complaints could be dealt with by private companies chosen by the minister himself, perhaps after a phone call from the airlines, rather than through a more transparent system. The government is cutting public service jobs. We understand that the it wants to reduce day-to-day government spending, but what good does that do if it ends up costing the government even more to have private companies do this work and there is a complete lack of transparency? The Liberals are blocking their own bill because they do not want to discuss this. The same goes for its “sovereign wealth fund”, which is a misnomer. According to La Presse, it is a wealth fund with no wealth. The government is giving itself the authority to conduct all sorts of studies and analyses with a view to possibly privatizing our airports, some of which have serious governance issues. Perhaps it wants to privatize them to fill this fund with money. Is that the case or not? It is hard to say, because today we are going to pass a bill without debate, without a proper clause-by-clause review, without parliamentary scrutiny, without expert testimony, without witnesses, and without sufficient parliamentary time. People need to understand that when there are tax measures in an economic or budget update, they take effect when the notice of ways and means is tabled in the House. That means there is no rush. We are dealing with a government that has made up its mind. The parliamentary secretary told us earlier that the government had a job to do, that Canadians had elected it to do that job, and that it would run roughshod over us if necessary to get it done. Some members rightly asked where, in the election platform, it was stated that a public servant could approve any pesticide or that complaints from airline passengers would be outsourced to the private sector. We hear that Air Canada was already ready to implement this law before members of Parliament had even seen it. Where in the Liberal election platform was there any mention of the possibility of privatizing airports? Nowhere. I said this last week and earlier today when I asked a question. I get the impression that the Prime Minister thinks of himself as the CEO of Canada. He sometimes forgets that he is the Prime Minister. I wonder if he knows where Parliament is on a map. It is a fair question, and I am asking it. No one knows. I know that Parliament deserves better than what the Liberals are currently doing. I would like to repeat that, when the government was in a minority, it kept justifying its constant need to limit debate by claiming that the majority opposition was preventing business from moving forward. Now the Liberals have a majority. Members of the committee can attest to the fact that Bill C-30 is being blocked by the Liberal Party, which clearly told us that no amendments would be allowed. That is a very disturbing approach to democracy.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 1:30 p.m.

“I want more time for the government's bills. Some bills could use more debate, but others have had too much. I think the opposition is exaggerating how much debate is needed. We have extended sitting hours and some debates have ended early.”

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 1:30 p.m.

“I'm filling time by complaining about the government's attitude. I want the government to compromise more in committee instead of relying on its majority. I think the government is partly to blame for long debates on amendments.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is a question of dynamics. When the government arrives at committee saying that it has a majority, that it has a bill, that it is not going to accept everything, but that it is willing to discuss certain issues, things start moving again. When it starts a committee meeting by telling everyone else that all their amendments have been thrown in the garbage, that the government has the power to say no, and that the other members are free to carry on and filibuster because, ultimately, the government has time allocation on its side, that creates a certain dynamic. Is it true that the Conservatives debated amendments—not all of which were particularly sensible—for some 30 hours? That is absolutely true. I will give the parliamentary secretary that much. However, could things have been handled differently from the outset? Personally, I tried. My colleague is referring to comments that were made on the record. Everyone can watch the videos where I said that a compromise needed to be reached, that civil servants were telling us it was possible and that we could move on. If the government had listened, it might have avoided seeing several amendments to the amendments tabled, not all of which were very useful, but which were tabled out of frustration. I believe that the government definitely shares responsibility for that.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Gérard Deltell

Conservative 1:30 p.m.

“I congratulated my colleague for his speech. I also acknowledged some politicians who are leaving. I want my colleague to talk more about how Air Canada staff were already prepared to apply certain rules before they were even debated in Parliament.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank my colleague from Mirabel for his speech. He began by acknowledging Sylvie D'Amours, who, after three terms as an MNA, will not be running again. I would also like to acknowledge Ms. D'Amours, as well as my provincial colleagues. I would like to acknowledge Éric Caire, who is leaving politics after 19 years, Mario Asselin, who is leaving politics after eight years as an MNA, and Sylvain Lévesque, who is leaving politics after ten years as an MNA. My colleague touched briefly on a point, and I would like him to elaborate on it. He said that Air Canada staff were already prepared to apply certain rules that had not yet been tabled in Parliament, let alone debated or even adopted. Can the member tell us more about this?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 1:30 p.m.

“The government should give the airline complaint commissioner more resources. The government is trying to make the system look broken so they can outsource it. Passengers pay to travel and have rights. The complaint process should be fair and transparent. The airline bill debate is too rushed to address these problems.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, this is indeed a situation that concerns us. A closer look shows that all of this plays right into the hands of the airlines. A commissioner who receives complaints needs to be given the necessary tools to make progress and process complaints. The government should not take away or withhold resources from the commissioner, only to finally say that the system is not working and that the work needs to be outsourced. Complaints must be handled with full transparency. Air passengers are families and individuals who pay to go on vacation and to travel and who are victims of injustice under the law and the regulations. They have a right to timely compensation, but they also have a right to be assured that the process is fair and transparent. That is a far cry from what is in place now. Can such assurance be provided? It might be possible. Would a parliamentary debate have perhaps provided that assurance? The answer is yes. However, the reality is that by the time the study of Bill C‑30 is complete, there will not be time for us to ask the right questions and get to the bottom of things for the benefit of the public. Today, we are under a guillotine. The bill will be shoved down Parliament's throat, and all these questions will remain unanswered.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Elizabeth May

Green 1:30 p.m.

“I agree with the member for Mirabel. The committee is deadlocked because of an omnibus budget bill with a hidden pesticide clause. This makes us angry about more closure.”

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 1:35 p.m.

“I agree that pesticides and air passenger complaints should not be in a budget bill. I want separate votes. Obstructionist tactics and dilatory motions are a waste of time. I didn't vote on those. The Green Party member has valid points and should be able to speak. I hope she will speak during the time we have left.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, we made sure that the House recognized that the air passenger complaints issue had nothing to do with budgetary policy. The same goes for pesticides: They have nothing to do with budgetary policy. There should be a separate vote. In the face of all of these obstructionist tactics, we need to take the high road during debate and stick to the facts. I abstained from voting on all these dilatory motions. I abstained from voting because I thought that they were ridiculous, and it is true that it was a waste of time. Now, I think that the member from the Green Party has some valid points to present to the committee. I think that she has the right to speak and that her concerns align with ours in many respects. I hope that she will have an opportunity to speak to this during the time we have left for debate under the closure motion.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Bloc Québécois 1:35 p.m.

“I'm using an anniversary to justify my party's existence. This bill doesn't address all of Quebec's needs, so we'll vote against it. A budget bill must be judged as a whole. There's not enough support for our region's industries facing American tariffs. Seniors are being treated differently based on age. Regional media and French-language media need more support. Health decisions should be based on science, not economics. Employment insurance changes help seasonal workers until 2028, but aren't a permanent fix. This bill doesn't address our region's priorities, like tariffs, seniors, or seasonal workers. We'll vote against it.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by pointing out that June 15, 2026, marks the 35th anniversary of the founding of the Bloc Québécois. In Sorel, on June 15, 1991, in the wake of the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Lucien Bouchard and members from Quebec from various backgrounds chose to come together to give Quebec its own voice in Ottawa. Lucien Bouchard put it very clearly, in a way that has stood the test of time: “The Bloc Québécois is the only way for us to do away with the harms of dual legitimacy. The truth is that there are two peoples, two loyalties and two visions of the country. There is a country missing in this country. Quebec is missing.” Thirty-five years later, this observation still resonates. Every time that Ottawa forgets about Quebec's priorities, every time that the regions are treated as an afterthought, every time that Quebec has to remind the government that it is a nation, the entire reason for the Bloc Québécois's existence is confirmed. Today, Bill C‑30 is another example of that. Not surprisingly, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. We are not voting against it because it is entirely bad. Some of the measures are a step in the right direction. However, a budget implementation bill must be judged as a whole and, taken as a whole, Bill C-30 fails to address the most pressing needs of Quebec and our regions. For regions like mine, the Lower St. Lawrence, this economic update is notable primarily for what it does not contain. While Quebeckers are fighting for survival, and while the aluminum, steel, timber and processing sectors are suffering the repercussions of new trade barriers, the government is tabling an economic update that does not rise to the challenge. In eastern Quebec, this directly affects our forestry businesses, our manufacturers and the workers who sustain our communities. There are no support programs for the affected sectors and no real plan to protect jobs, as if this crisis can simply wait, yet the Bloc Québécois has proposed concrete measures to support the sectors affected by American tariffs, to help the elderly, to protect our regional media and to finally reform EI. None of these proposals were retained. We also called for correcting the injustice created between seniors 65 to 74 and those 75 and older. In a region like the Lower St. Lawrence, this issue has a real impact. At 74, groceries cost the same as they do at 75. Housing costs the same. Heating costs the same, and yet, Ottawa continues to treat these seniors differently. The Bloc Québécois believes there should not be two categories of seniors. Our seniors have worked their entire lives. They have built our communities. They deserve to be treated fairly. We also called for meaningful support for regional and French-language media. In eastern Quebec, we have seen regional news coverage lose ground. When regional newscasts are no longer broadcast from within our region, it is a wake-up call. The government has chosen to concede to the web giants and forgo revenue that could have been used to support local news, culture and French-language media. This economic update includes no concrete measures to further support regional media or protect local news. Once again, it is the regions that are left holding the bag. In a region where agriculture plays an important role in the local economy, we are also concerned about the proposed changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to the Pest Control Products Act. The government wants to weigh economic considerations against public health and environmental protection. For the Bloc Québécois, health care decisions must not be driven by politics. They must be based on science. Public health must never become an economic adjustment variable. I now want to talk about employment insurance. The government is extending certain provisions for seasonal workers until 2028. That is better than nothing. However, it still falls short of the comprehensive reform that regions have been seeking for decades. Seasonality is not a temporary phenomenon in the Lower St. Lawrence. It is part of our economic reality. In 2028, our forestry, agriculture, tourism and marine industries will still need workers. The conditions that justify these provisions will still be there. Why then are temporary solutions still being applied to a permanent problem? Why is uncertainty allowed to persist year after year? Why are these protections not being permanently enshrined in law? The Bloc Québécois is calling for real EI reform, permanent reform, systemic reform, reform that will finally eliminate the spring gap for thousands of workers. Seasonal workers are not a temporary problem. They are at the heart of our regions' economies. Ultimately, this bill does not address the priorities of regions like ours. It does not address the challenges raised by U.S. tariffs, the expectations of seasonal workers, the pressing needs of seniors or the difficulties facing our regional media. It also raises serious concerns about public health and environmental protection. People back home are not asking us for the moon. They are asking us to listen to them, to take their reality into account and to come up with practical answers to the challenges they face in their daily lives. Unfortunately, this bill provides them with no such answers. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C‑30.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 1:35 p.m.

“I'm not surprised the Bloc is voting against this budget. It helps all regions, including theirs. The Bloc member complained that seniors 65 to 75 are treated differently, but requirements are different between 65 and 75. We promised that in our platform. This budget supports all regions in a real way, including ours. We all feel passionate about our home provinces.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that the Bloc is making the decision to vote against the budget and the supplementary legislation required to implement it. At the end of the day, this is a budget that would, in fact, serve all Canadians in many different ways. The member made reference to the issue of 65 to 75 with respect to seniors. What he did not highlight is the fact that there is a difference generally between the ages of 65 and 75 regarding medical requirements, employment capabilities and other types of expenses at age 75. This is not to mention the fact that there was an election platform back in the day that said we were going to do just that. The member is very selective. All regions of the country are supported within this budget in a very real and tangible way, including my home province and his home province, and we all feel very passionate about our home provinces.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Bloc Québécois 1:35 p.m.

“I'm very offended. You say the government is helping everyone, but the extra money for seniors won't last. Seniors need more money forever. Their problems are permanent. If you don't know that after years in Parliament, why are you even here? Go ask seniors if they have to choose between rent, medicine, food or clothes. Then you'll see I'm right. You'll be shocked.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary just said is extremely insulting. He now says he is offering it to everyone, but the measure he is offering to seniors is temporary. The purchasing power of seniors is a permanent problem, however. If he does not understand that after all these years as a member of Parliament, I wonder what he is doing here. I invite my colleague to go out into the community to meet with seniors, and I invite him to ask them if they have to make agonizing choices today between paying their rent, buying medication, groceries or clothes. Then he will come back and tell us things like he just did. I think he is going to be in for a big surprise, as we say in Quebec.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Gérard Deltell

Conservative 1:35 p.m.

“Yes I'm not here to debate Quebec separation. Lucien Bouchard says maybe we shouldn't rush into a new referendum. Should you listen to him?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He began by marking the 35th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to wish everyone in the Bloc Québécois a happy anniversary. Clearly, I am not about to debate the matter, but, since he quoted Lucien Bouchard, I would also like to quote him. Last August, Lucien Bouchard stated that he was not in favour of holding a referendum right away. He said the following: I trust in Mr. Plamondon's [the leader of the Parti Québécois] sound judgment to reconsider the matter and make a decision that is in the public interest... I'm not look to cause him any trouble, but I think Mr. Plamondon should think very carefully before sticking to his commitment to hold a referendum... Does my colleague agree with Lucien Bouchard?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Bloc Québécois 1:35 p.m.

“You're not surprised I want Quebec to separate. I want Quebec to separate. I'll keep saying I want Quebec to separate. This isn't the place to argue about separation. I just wanted to say I want Quebec to separate.”

Andrew Lawton

Conservative 1:45 p.m.

“I want to use a process complaint about the Liberals to score political points. If I talk a lot about how the Liberals did it maybe you will forget to ask why I just tried to impose my own solution on the provinces too.”

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Bloc Québécois 1:45 p.m.

“I want to pile on and dunk on the Liberals too. The Liberals spent so much money. I want to make the Liberals look bad by reminding you how much money they spent. Also I want Quebec to be a special case who gets more money.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his French. It is fairly easy to understand. The Liberals have rigged a majority. That is not insignificant. It is a historical first. Does anyone know what else is a historical first? The government has run the biggest deficit in history, totalling $78 billion. That said, they have done such outstanding work that that deficit will be $10 billion less. This government is currently doing the exact opposite of what it promised during the first election, which took place in April 2025. The main problem is that the government said it would resolve the crisis with the Americans. However, at present, nothing has been resolved. Concession after concession is being made, mainly at Quebec's expense. Our economy is the hardest hit compared to the rest of Canada.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Liberal 1:45 p.m.

“I want to make my riding happy. I will spend money on programs in my riding. I will list many programs in my riding. I think this will make me look good.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, a riding with a name even longer than mine. Today, we are discussing our economic update, which is an important step in our plan to build a strong Canada. Over the next few minutes, I will explain what we mean by a strong Canada. When we talk about building a strong Canadian economy, we are talking about an economy that works for everyone. That is why we are continuing our investments in social programs that help people deal with the cost of living. I am thinking in particular of the Canada child benefit. This is a monthly tax-free payment that helps families provide for their children. Since its introduction in 2016, it has become a cornerstone of Canada's social safety net. Each year, it keeps nearly 600,000 children above the poverty line. In my province, New Brunswick, more than 80,000 families receive nearly $640 million a year. This money goes directly into the pockets of New Brunswick families to help them provide for their children. In July of this year, monthly payments will increase again to account for inflation. This is a good example of what we mean when we talk about building a strong Canadian economy that works for everyone. When we talk about our plan to build a stronger Canada, we are also talking about investments in nation-building projects, in infrastructure and housing, and in the projects carried out on the ground by our community organizations. In particular, I want to highlight the importance of the New Horizons for Seniors program, which provides financial support for projects that have a positive impact on the lives of seniors in their communities. Every year, many projects get built, including in my riding. They provide a wide range of activities that have a positive impact on seniors and the facilities they use. These projects help combat social isolation, promote volunteering among seniors and strengthen the communities in which they operate. This year, the call for proposals is open. Projects can receive up to $50,000 in funding and interested organizations have until July 14 to submit their application. I would like to illustrate the importance of these investments with a few examples from my riding, because these are projects that genuinely improve the lives of the people I represent here. I am thinking in particular of the investments made in various seniors clubs in Saint‑François‑de‑Madawaska, where renovations were carried out on the community kitchen. I am also thinking of a whole range of activities and workshops offered in Kedgwick for seniors, as well as the purchase of equipment for outdoor activities in Saint‑Quentin and the renovations at the Campbellton seniors club. I am also thinking of other types of organizations, such as the Jodin Residences in Edmundston, where I was able to attend the opening of a community garden; the Acanthus Gallery in Grand Falls, which offers pottery classes; the multi-generational activities offered in Vallée‑des‑Rivières; or the improvement work for Les aventuriers de Charlo. This is a range of activities. The amounts are not always huge, but it is money well spent to improve the lives of seniors and of those within our communities. When talking about building Canada strong, we must also look at which sectors of the economy need to be strengthened and developed. This brings to mind the work that we are doing to establish Canada's sovereign space launch capabilities. Right now, Canada is the only G7 country that has no sovereign space launch capabilities. To fix this situation, we recently introduced a Canadian space launch act that is going to make a huge difference by developing the framework needed to create Canada's sovereign space launch capabilities. This comes on top of our investments in supporting the development of spaceports, including Maritime Launch Services in Nova Scotia. These investments are important. They equip us with sovereign capabilities to meet our defence needs, serve our strategic interests and more. They will also create major economic benefits and address the needs of a wide range of sectors, like the telecommunications sector. We know that the new, rapidly emerging satellite technologies have the potential to change the cellular connectivity landscape in our regions. I know something on that score as the representative for Madawaska—Restigouche. I hear about cellular connectivity problems from constituents all the time. When I travel from one end of the riding to another, from Saint-Basile in Madawaska to Sainte-Anne-de-Madawaska in Restigouche, or along Highway 17, to name just a few, I run into lots of dead zones with no cell coverage. This is both a safety issue and an economic one, and since it affects the appeal of our communities, it is a top priority for the people I represent. Certainly, as a member of Parliament, I am very interested in the potential of satellites that, with certain technologies, could substantially expand cellular coverage in our regions that are currently underserved. By building our own space launch capabilities and supporting the development of a spaceport, we are ensuring that Canada does not miss the boat and that we have the capacity to support this sector of the future. We know that things are evolving and that this technology is developing. We are therefore preparing and investing to get this telecommunications sector ready, especially since we recognize its great potential for cellular connectivity. That is one example. Building Canada strong also means protecting nature. Last spring, we launched “A Force of Nature: Canada's Strategy to Protect Nature”, backed by a $3.8-billion investment, which will focus on measurable outcomes and actions that can be implemented by 2030. Our strategy is built on three pillars aimed at aligning nature conservation with economic growth. These three pillars are “Protecting Nature in Canada”, “Building Canada Well” and “Valuing Nature and Mobilizing Capital”. Among the various measures included in our strategy to better protect nature, I would like to talk about our five-year investment of $81.7 million as part of Canada's national strategy to ensure the future of Atlantic salmon 2024-2036. This funding will make an essential contribution to stabilizing and restoring wild Atlantic salmon habitats. As we know, this species has been in decline since the 1980s, but the rate of decline has accelerated in recent years and is having a real impact on our communities. It is therefore important to invest in the conservation of this species, particularly to protect our natural ecosystems, but also because of its strong cultural and identity-related value. In my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, salmon fishing is rooted in traditions that date back several generations, as well as in fishing knowledge and practices that have been passed down from one generation to the next. The decline in the wild salmon population also represents a loss of our living heritage in my riding. It is therefore at the heart of our identity and our culture. It also has significant economic consequences because hundreds of jobs depend on it in the fishing camps that practise salmon fishing, particularly along the Restigouche River. Most of these camps are located in my riding. This has significant economic benefits for our communities. In short, preserving wild Atlantic salmon and investing in our strategy to protect nature means simultaneously protecting nature, supporting our local economy and keeping our heritage alive. To build Canada strong, we must also maintain a strong arts and culture sector. I am very pleased that budget 2025 includes an investment of more than $750 million to support arts and culture. Supporting arts and culture not only strengthens our identity and culture, but also brings significant economic benefits to our communities. There is also a wide range of projects in our ridings, including festivals, that can be supported through this funding. Summer is just around the corner, and a wide range of activities take place during the summer months. Local artists are often featured at festivals in our communities. In fact, back home in Madawaska—Restigouche, we have a packed lineup of events. Dedicated volunteers care deeply about our communities and want us to enjoy a lively and dynamic summer season. To that end, the federal government is supporting art exhibits, including by local artists, through various Department of Canadian Heritage programs. These programs can also be used to support programming put on by our cultural organizations and arts centres. This represents a whole range of funding that recognizes the importance of the arts and culture sector in building Canada strong. I see that I am running out of time. I would be happy to answer any questions my colleagues may have.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tamara Kronis

Conservative 1:55 p.m.

“Does my colleague agree that granting cabinet the power to give special exemptions for years is a serious issue? I think we need a longer, more thorough debate. I do not think we should rush this through committee quickly.”

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Liberal 1:55 p.m.

“I want to talk about the issue of food. I want to strengthen Canada's food sovereignty. I want more Canadian food on our plates. I want us to invest in local farmers. I want to support greenhouses.”

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Bloc Québécois 1:55 p.m.

“I want to talk about EI reform. The Liberals have been promising this since 2015. They said it in 2019. They even put it in the budget in 2021. Now it's 2026. The government is offering temporary solutions to a permanent problem. Does my colleague think temporary solutions will solve this permanent problem?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to sit with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Science and Research. We share certain rural boundaries and we have an awareness of some of our mutual realities. I would like to talk to him about the EI issue. The Liberals, who were in power back then, have been promising a reform since 2015. The Trudeau government said so in 2015. Then, during the 2019 campaign, it said it again. In 2021, the budget even promised that the reform would get done. Here we are, in 2026, and we are still waiting. The government is offering temporary solutions to a permanent problem. Does my colleague truly believe that he is building Canada strong by proposing temporary solutions to a permanent problem?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Liberal 1:55 p.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words and saying nothing anyone could pin down later. Let me talk about a temporary pilot project from 2018 instead of the EI reform my party promised in 2015 and 2019 and again in the 2021 budget and still hasn't delivered.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, as soon as the Liberals returned to power, the most controversial EI reforms introduced by the Stephen Harper Conservative government were abolished. Many of these measures did nothing to address the realities of our rural regions. We therefore scrapped the measures that had been introduced by the Conservatives. In 2018, a pilot project was launched in 13 economic regions across Canada where seasonal work is common, allowing for up to five additional weeks of EI. This pilot project helps seasonal workers, as well as the employers and the local economies of all these regions, because it allows people to stay in their communities while they wait for the next season. I am very pleased to say that we extended the funding for this measure in the economic update. This pilot project actually covers my entire riding. I believe this is a step in the right direction to support our workers with a view to building Canada strong.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Government Orders

Jean-Denis Garon

Jean-Denis Garon

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Jean-Denis Garon

Gérard Deltell

Jean-Denis Garon

Elizabeth May

Jean-Denis Garon

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Gérard Deltell

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Andrew Lawton

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Tamara Kronis

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault