Main Estimates, 2026-27

The House debated the Main Estimates for 2026-27, including a motion to approve roughly $18 billion in capital spending for National Defence. Government members said the plan shifts money from day-to-day operations to priorities like defence, housing and infrastructure, pointing to reaching NATO’s 2% spending target early and a pay raise for Armed Forces members. Much of the debate centred on a $20 million payment to Maritime Launch Services for space launch work in Nova Scotia: government members said it builds Canadian space sovereignty and aerospace jobs instead of relying on foreign providers, while Conservatives said the company was financially weak before the payment and asked for documentation, arguing money was going to insiders. Bloc Québécois members criticized cuts to science and research funding, carbon rebate money paid by Quebec, and bills they said give ministers power to bypass other laws, and asked for a military reserve unit in Lac-Saint-Jean. NDP and some members also raised fraud affecting small businesses and banks’ responsibility for it, and some members used the debate to speak about their own ridings.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

106 statements

Dan Albas, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“The government wants to take $20 million from the military budget to help a private company that was near bankruptcy. I want us to talk about that choice instead of other issues. The government chose to help this company instead of helping seniors who are also struggling.”
Official Hansard

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, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek

Conservative
“The government is leasing land for $20 million a year that was previously leased for only $13,500. I want the government to release all the documents about this deal so Canadians can see what happened.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 44 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“The government is hiding the details on this project. Norway spent 40 million dollars to build and own their own system, but the Liberals want to give 200 million dollars of public money away. We need real answers, and a committee should order the government to hand over the documents.”
Official Hansard

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, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes

Conservative
“I am moving to cut 20 million dollars from the budget. Canada should be able to launch its own rockets, but the government has not shown that this 200-million-dollar spaceport deal is a good use of tax money. It must answer basic questions about the contract and how the company was chosen.”
Official Hansard

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: 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”.

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

Liberal
“The Conservatives oppose everything our government wants to do, including spending on the military and space projects in Atlantic Canada. I want to know if there is any part of our spending that they actually support.”
Official Hansard

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. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: 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, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes

Conservative
“I support Canada being able to launch our own payloads into space. But the government must show receipts for this spending instead of just handing 20 million dollars to Liberal insiders.”
Official Hansard

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.

Burton Bailey, Red Deer

Conservative
“Nova Scotia leased land for $13,500 a year, but the federal government gives the company $55,000 every single day. I want the member to explain how paying so much more helps taxpayers.”
Official Hansard

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, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes

Conservative
“We oppose spending this money. The government will not show what taxpayers are getting for it, or if it just benefits a private company instead of Canada.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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, Lac-Saint-Jean

Bloc Québécois
“The government gives billions of dollars to the oil and gas industry, but gives nothing to forestry. Oil and gas hurts the planet, while forestry helps fight climate change. I want to know why we keep funding the industry that pollutes instead of the one that helps.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes

Conservative

Linked statement

“I want the government to show proof of where its money goes. It should stop giving money to its friends and spend it on forestry, natural resources, and the military instead.”
Official Hansard

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, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois
“The government is giving itself too much power to bypass laws. It wants cabinet to be able to approve banned pesticides without proper science, and it wants to ignore environmental rules and property rights to build high-speed rail. The government is also ignoring small businesses, underfunding agriculture, and rushing bills through without enough debate. It needs to stop doing this and work with opposition parties.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Our government is helping make life more affordable and supporting farmers. We gave money to 11 million people for groceries and cut the fuel tax by 10 cents a litre.”
Official Hansard

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—

Yves Perron, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois
“The government should stop giving tax breaks to oil companies. It should also increase pension payments for seniors aged 65 to 74. It claims that is too expensive, but it still plans to spend billions on high-speed rail.”
Official Hansard

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, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk

Conservative
“The high-speed rail project between Quebec City and Toronto is taking land away from people in Mirabel, and it is handling it very badly. What does it do to farmers when the government takes their land like this?”
Official Hansard

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?

Yves Perron, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois
“I am worried the government will take too much land from people in my riding for the Alto train project. The train only needs 60 metres, but the government is looking at a 10-kilometre area. I want to know if the government plans to take extra land just to sell it later for profit.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank my esteemed colleague for that very interesting question. What happened in Mirabel with the supposedly international airport that never came to be was that the government had to return nearly 90% of the land that it stole from people. People had to buy it back at today’s prices. That is what happened. Now, Alto is coming to our area, even though Mirabel still bears the scars of past expropriations. I do not want Berthier—Maskinongé to experience that kind of horror. Alto is coming to my area and terrorizing people along a 10-kilometre-wide stretch. The government is telling us not to worry because Alto only needs 60 metres. First of all, there is going to be a construction site around that 60 metres. Second, if only 60 metres is needed, then why take a stretch 10 kilometres wide? It looks like the government is planning to take more land than it needs. Is it going to try to resell the land around this train through land speculation to fund this huge project?

Alexis Deschênes, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj

Bloc Québécois
“The government keeps passing bills that give ministers more personal power and bypass other laws. I am asking my colleague what risks he sees with this move away from democracy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleague’s speech was very interesting, especially the first part, when he talked about drifting away from democracy. It resonated with me, because I was elected last year and I have noticed that, month after month, the government keeps introducing legislation to bypass lots of other legislation, saying that, from now on, as much power as possible is going to be placed under certain ministers’ discretion. What risk does my colleague see in all that?

Yves Perron, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois
“We should not rush to let people without scientific knowledge make decisions about approving products like pesticides. People could make bad choices because of pressure from lobby groups, and that will hurt our children and our land later.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is not much time to assess this risk. The risk is that anyone can make decisions about anything. Let me draw a parallel. During COVID‑19, members of the Conservative Party wanted us to vote on motions that would lift the health measures in place for air travel. We agreed, but we had the wisdom to concede that we were not microbiologists or epidemiologists. We therefore asked to include wording to the effect of “with the consent of public health authorities”. The danger is that uninformed people will make decisions—under pressure from lobby groups or economic pressures—to approve products, including crop protection products that will be used on our land. Later, our children and grandchildren end up paying the price. It is terrifyingly serious.

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Lac-Saint-Jean

Bloc Québécois
“I want the government to put a military reserve unit in Lac-Saint-Jean. My region has the buildings and workers to help the military grow, and it would create needed jobs. I also want the government to give real financial help to our forestry workers instead of giving billions to oil and gas companies.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and especially for his last answer, which I think was quite intelligent, and full of common sense and wisdom. As my colleague also said in his speech, at the Bloc Québécois, and in Lac‑Saint‑Jean in particular, we are not satisfied with simply noting that economic challenges exist. We propose ambitious but above all achievable ideas to help our regional economy grow. It is in that spirit that I wish to draw the attention of the House to a very real opportunity for our region. A unit or subunit of the Canadian Armed Forces reserve is being established in northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean. At a time when the federal government is announcing historic investments in defence and looking to increase its military personnel to 39,000 members by 2032, Lac‑Saint‑Jean has everything that a reserve unit needs. The project being considered in Saint‑Félicien has strong local and regional support. In fact, the mayor of Saint‑Félicien was here on the Hill today to promote this great project with people from the Department of National Defence. I should mention that this work had already begun several years ago. A feasibility study had confirmed the project’s potential, but the 2021 federal election put a halt to the process. There had even been discussions in the early 2000s. Today, however, the timing has never been better. The federal government is seeking to strengthen the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces, increase the recruitment of reservists and invest more in defence. Our project is directly aligned with these objectives and will generate lasting economic benefits for the Lac-Saint-Jean region. It is a win-win opportunity for both the Department of National Defence and our region. Moreover, Canada’s new defence industrial strategy raises the important question of the capacity of our regions to support growth and meet the current needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. This is precisely where Lac-Saint-Jean stands out. This riding, which I am proud to represent, has very real strengths: solid regional support, clearly expressed by municipal and regional elected officials; infrastructure already in place that can tangibly support training, recruitment and operational support activities; and above all an engaged population. We are not starting from scratch. We are talking about a region that is already organized and structured, and that is capable of hosting a reserve project. Of particular note is the strategic location of Saint‑Félicien and northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean, which truly serve as the gateway to more northern regions. At a time when Arctic and northern sovereignty issues are becoming increasingly important, this location is turning into a real asset to the government’s proposed strategy. In my riding, we have ambitious but achievable ideas for growing our regional economy. This is the first time I have spoken about this initiative, I know, but there is nothing improvised about it. It is a solid, well-documented project that can have a real impact on achieving federal defence objectives. Moreover, this kind of project is not of military interest only; it also has a role to play in stimulating regional development, maintaining a federal presence in our regions and creating economic benefits for our communities. Indeed, the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean has five times fewer federal jobs than average compared to other Canadian regions. This was confirmed by the study we commissioned, so it is clearly an inequity that must be addressed. The establishment of a military reserve is a golden opportunity to create jobs, retain our young talent, diversify our economy and strengthen the political weight of our regions. I repeat: In my riding, we have ideas that are ambitious but above all achievable for growing our regional economy, because in Lac-Saint-Jean, we are not content to be mere observers. We want to be key players in the development of our communities. If the government is serious about its approach and truly wants to achieve the Canadian Armed Forces’ modernization and growth objectives, it must absolutely focus on regions like ours. One thing is certain: The federal government will not be able to meet its recruitment goals by limiting itself to major urban centres. Regions therefore have an essential role to play. As mentioned earlier, Lac-Saint-Jean has the infrastructure and resources to host a reserve unit. This project, as I said, is realistic, relevant and beneficial for everyone. In closing, the message I bring today is quite simple. Lac-Saint-Jean is ready and can truly do its part. I sincerely hope this government will heed my call. Speaking of which, I have to say that it took months, if not years, before the federal government lifted a finger to help the forestry industry. When it finally did, it still stubbornly refused to address the lumber industry’s top priority, which is for the government to buy back the countervailing and anti-dumping duties that are sitting idle in the United States and implement a loan and loan guarantee program to match the amounts being withheld by the United States. When it comes to the forestry industry, the current government lacks one thing: an understanding of the situation faced by people who make a living from the forest. I understand that situation. Before I was lucky enough to represent the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, I worked on the paper machines at what was then known as the Resolu mill and which is now called the Domtar mill. I know what life is like for those people. Forestry workers get up very early in the morning and work 12‑hour shifts on a 3‑2‑2‑3 rotation schedule. Does anyone on the other side know what a 3‑2‑2‑3 rotation schedule is? It is three day shifts and two days of leave followed by two night shifts and three days of leave, and then the whole thing starts again but this time with three night shifts and two days of leave followed by two days shifts and three days of leave. That is what life looks like for pulp and paper mill workers. What does life look like for a guy who harvests lumber? He wonders whether he will have enough money when he gets back to make the payments on his machinery, which costs a fortune. When a sawmill worker wakes up one morning only to be told that there is going to be a temporary shutdown after all, that is what life is like in the forestry sector. For small forestry communities, it also means that everyone is laid off. For the mechanic, the guy at the corner store or the town’s grocery store, it means that people can no longer spend their money there. It means that they will move elsewhere to find work. It means that schools will close. That is the reality for people in the forestry industry. Meanwhile, the government is telling us that it is going to announce $10 billion over 10 years. We are talking about $10 billion over 10 years that are not even funded for the forestry industry. The government just gave $14 billion to the oil and gas industry for one year, and yet they are telling me that the government is taking action for the forestry industry. The reality for people in the forestry industry is that this industry is in crisis. The time to help them is now. Meanwhile, the government is singing the praises of its Minister of Finance, who is actually the member for a region where forestry is a key industry. It is hard to believe. This Minister of Finance is flinging money at the oil and gas industry while sawmills are shutting down in his own backyard. That is the reality for the forestry industry. It is downright shocking and frankly bizarre to see what this government’s attitude has been for years. It will not raise a finger to help the forestry industry, to help workers. What is more, those workers are the lifeblood of the industry that is in the best position to fight greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, yet the government is giving money to the industry that is in the worst position to do those things. In fact, the industry it is giving money to is actually making climate change worse. That is just insane. I hope the government will eventually understand what workers are going through. I hope it will eventually realize that this industry is circular. First, workers need to go get the lumber. Then they need to haul it back by truck. Then they process it into wood chips, which are put through pulpers to make pulp. They also have to make kraft pulp. Then it is sent to the sawmills. This government has no idea. It does not realize how important this is to Quebec’s forestry regions. I will stop there.

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

Liberal
“Our government supports key industries like forestry, aluminum, and steel with funding. We also promised nearly $35 billion to the military to protect our sovereignty in the Arctic. I want to know if the Bloc Québécois supports this investment in northern Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong when he makes the assessment that the government does not understand. Of course the government understands. That is why we are providing financial support, whether it is for our forestry industry, our aluminum industry or our steel industry. We can appreciate the tension and anxiety within those ndustries. My question is more in regard to the issue of reserves and Arctic sovereignty, a very high priority. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister was up north and made a commitment of close to $35 billion in order to invest in the armed forces and protect our sovereignty in the north. Does the Bloc party support the investment for northern Canada in order to substantiate a very strong, sovereign north—

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Lac-Saint-Jean

Bloc Québécois
“I want an army reserve unit in Saint-Félicien. The government is also failing our forestry industry. Sawmills are closing and people are losing their jobs because the government did not fight American tariffs. The government quickly gave money to the auto industry, but it does nothing to help forestry.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 43 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague listened to the question, he would have realized that I want a Canadian Armed Forces reserve unit in Saint-Félicien, in northern Lac-Saint-Jean. He said I was wrong about the forestry industry, but he is the one who is completely off base. Sawmills are closing right now. I invite him to come meet the workers who have just lost their jobs, who have just been laid off because the government did nothing. It did not stand up to the Americans over the illegal countervailing duties. That is what happened. We are in the middle of the sixth trade war, and they are still wondering what they are going to do to respond to this affront from the Americans. They have not done a thing. Meanwhile, when the auto industry gets hit with tariffs, they write a cheque during the election campaign. It took them a week to respond. They are doing absolutely nothing for the forestry industry, even though we have been subject to tariffs for years. Honestly, that is pretty weak.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 131

  1. Private Members' Business The Criminal Code 6 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 68 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  4. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 14 statements
  6. Oral Questions Health 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  8. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  10. Oral Questions Health 8 statements
  11. Oral Questions Public Safety 6 statements
  12. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Employment 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  15. Government Orders Business of Supply 38 statements
  16. Government Orders Business of Supply 28 statements
  17. Government Orders Main Estimates, 2026-27 106 statements
  18. Government Orders Supplementary Estimates (A), 2026‑27 7 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Orders 5 statements
  20. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  21. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements