Steven MacKinnon
Gatineau, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“[ Translation ] We have come here to Ottawa with different solutions to the challenges we currently face, but let us be very clear: We are united in this chamber by our love for the Parliament of Canada and for Canada itself.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to adjourn for the summer, I would like to express my gratitude to a few people. [ English ] I want to extend my personal thanks to everyone here on Parliament Hill.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are at the end of a session, and I wish the Leader of the Opposition, his colleagues and obviously his family a restful summer, as I wish for all my colleagues on this side of the House. I want to point out that we are finishing one of the most productive legislative sessions in recent history.”
“[ English ] I want to thank my colleagues, the 174 proud and committed Canadians who serve their people proudly every day. [ Translation ] I do not want to overlook the contribution made by the other parties.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about generations and generational investments. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Quebec's and Canada's French-speaking culture. That is something that the Bloc Québécois did not even ask for in its budget requests.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have been having an interesting conversation this week in this very forum. The Conservatives pretend to stand up for and care for vulnerable people in this country, yet every time we propose a program, a tax reduction or a hand-up to people, they vote against it.”
The complete record
Every one of 827 lines we hold for Steven MacKinnon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 17.
“Mr. Speaker, of course those accusations are ridiculous. Just like us, the 343 members of this House, the Prime Minister has abided by some of the strictest rules in the entire world. These rules were put in place by the Conservatives and Mr. Harper. The Prime Minister placed all of his assets in a blind trust on the day he was elected leader of the Liberal Party, even before he became Prime Minister. Contrast that with the Leader of the Opposition , who has spent 20 years in the House without a security clearance.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister , as we all must, all 343 of us, follows the rules, which are among the strictest in the world. These are rules that the Conservatives put in place under Prime Minister Harper. The Prime Minister has disposed of all his assets in a blind trust. He did so on the day of his election as the Liberal Party leader, five days before he was sworn in as Prime Minister. Contrast that with a 22-year run of not having a security clearance, which is the position in which the Leader of the Opposition finds himself.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is because Canada is investing in Quebec and we will also be undertaking major projects in the mining sector in Quebec. There is Nouveau Monde Graphite, which represents thousands of jobs, the designation of the Port of Québec as a first port of arrival for our country, and the expansion of the Port of Montreal, which will increase capacity in Contrecœur by 60%. These are megaprojects that represent tens of thousands of jobs and economic opportunities for Quebeckers. We are investing. That is what economic nationalism is all about, and that is good for Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is the finance critic, it must be said, for the official opposition. They keep talking about inflationary spending. First of all, inflation is in the target zone of the Bank of Canada and has been for some time. We have yet to see, and maybe the finance critic could help us out here, a list of proposed cuts. What do they define as inflationary spending and how do they propose to withdraw that from the people who benefit, like our seniors, for example? Where is the list? What is it? The finance critic—”
“Madam Speaker, that is an interesting one. I want to acknowledge the member's, and perhaps that of other members of the opposition, devotion to following conspiracy theories online. Let us talk about economic impact. In one of the great places in Canada, which is Nova Scotia, it could add 16,000 jobs and add $300 million to our GDP alone. It is currently under construction and set to be completed in 2028. I will read a quote: “We are proud that Nova Scotia is home to Canada’s first commercial spaceport and recognize the critical role Maritime Launch [Services] will play in offering a satellite launch facility to the global market.” That was Premier Tim Houston in 2023.”
“Madam Speaker, I would encourage my hon. colleague to look around the world where space launches are permitted. Canada would do essentially what those other countries have done in terms of an insurance scheme and an insurance regulatory infrastructure. I would stress that private companies that are looking to launch satellites or other payloads would be required to have insurance that would protect from risks. The Government of Canada would, of course, assess their insurance and their coverage as it assesses the appropriateness of all of these launches. The Minister of Transport regulates a lot of things in this country. The number one thing that we regulate is safety. We are here to protect Canadians, and the powers we deploy are specifically and principally in service of that objective of keeping Canadians safe.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague hits the nail right on the head. This is a part of building Canada strong. This is about carving out a place to serve Canadians using Canadian hands, Canadian minds, Canadian ambition, Canadian technology and a Canadian supply chain that stretches right across this country. This would give Canada the ability to control end to end. We are already world leaders in satellites, robotics and space. Let us take our space assets and get them to the stars on our own.”
“Madam Speaker, I think it is important to point out that the safety of our communities, the safety surrounding space launches, is central to our process. We propose to create regulations specifically designed to reassure these communities that launches like these can occur safely. Of course, the transportation-related work of the Canadian Transportation Agency involves what we might term “conventional transportation”. However, we think that specific regulations ensuring everyone's safety under this bill would be the best solution. No, I did not draft the bill, since we have a space industry in Canada that was able to assist in drafting this bill, and I am very proud to introduce it on its behalf.”
“Madam Speaker, where am I to begin? I suppose if we wanted to contemplate a number of things, like the member just did, we could. This bill would permit the establishment of a regulatory framework for space launches from Canada. I have outlined the scientific, the economic and, yes, the sovereignty rationale for putting in place this regulatory framework. What would follow are, indeed, rules. Now, just to take but one example of what the member evokes, the Canadian Space Agency would be involved in examining payloads. I think the member underestimates the role of our own Canadian Armed Forces in launching satellites and enabling their launches from Canada, launching Canadian security material from Canadian spaceports. That is an important part of it. I will have the ability to go on further as we continue with questions.”
“[ Translation ] Let us go down that road together. Let us be ambitious. Let us provide scientific and economic opportunities to young people who dream about space. [ English ] Let us ensure that, when Canadians look to the stars, they see a future built right here by Canadians, for Canadians and for the world.”
“[ Translation ] I encourage all parties to support this bill so that Canada can seize the unique opportunity that we have before us and strengthen our sovereignty in an increasingly complex world. Once the bill is passed, we will be able to develop detailed regulations and work with the provinces and industry to coordinate our efforts to support the development of launch sites and related infrastructure. This is the next chapter in Canada's space history and we cannot miss it. [ English ] Canada has a proud history in space, but history alone will not secure our future. We must act. We must modernize. We must seize the opportunity before us. The Canadian space launch act is our chance to do exactly that to build a stronger economy, a more resilient country and a more sovereign future. Let us take this step together.”
“What they need is a modern legal framework that supports their ambitions, and that is what this legislation would deliver. Again, this is not a partisan issue. It is a nation-building opportunity. Supporting this legislation means supporting economic growth, job creation, innovation, national security and sovereignty. It means ensuring that Canadian companies can compete on a level playing field. It means giving our researchers, our entrepreneurs and our armed forces the tools they need to succeed. It means positioning Canada as a space-faring nation, one of only a handful in the world. It means telling the world that when it comes to the new space economy, Canada intends to be a builder, a partner and a leader.”
“NordSpace, based in Ontario and expanding into Newfoundland and Labrador, is developing one of Canada's first commercial space ports, creating jobs, attracting investment and inspiring the next generation. (1020) [ Translation ] Reaction Dynamics, a Quebec-based company, is developing cutting-edge launch vehicles that require limited infrastructure, which could place Canada at the forefront of launch technologies. [ English ] For Telesat, a domestic launch capability would offer an additional reliable pathway to orbit for their lightspeed constellation, which aims to deliver high-speed Internet access to remote areas in Canada and around the world by 2030. These companies, and many others, are ready to grow in Canada and to compete globally.”
“[ English ] The Canadian space launch bill is built, therefore, on six core pillars: number one, clear authority to regulate launch and re-entry; number two, a modern licensing framework that reduces duplication and closes regulatory regulatory gaps; number three, safety and security requirements tailored to launch and re-entry activities; number four, a financial responsibility and indemnification regime aligned with international norms; number five, structured land use and site authorization processes; and six, oversight, compliance and enforcement tools to maintain public confidence. Together, these pillars form the foundation of a safe, competitive and future-ready launch sector. Across the country, Canadian innovators are already stepping up.”
“This bill also recognizes that responsible authorization for space launch and re-entry operations requires that potential financial liabilities be properly managed and safeguards be established before they are needed. These amendments will establish an insurance and indemnification system tailored to the specific risks associated with space launches and atmospheric re-entry. This system would require operators to demonstrate financial accountability in order to protect Canadians and would reinforce Canada's commitment to act as a responsible space-faring nation. This bill allows us to establish such a framework in a manner consistent with international best practices and in a way that provides our space sector with the clarity and certainty it has long sought.”
“A sovereign launch capability would strengthen Arctic domain awareness, support NORAD modernization, enhance our ability to monitor wildfires, floods and maritime activity, and ensure continuity of critical satellite services. It would contribute to NATO investment-sharing and capability targets. [ Translation ] It would also allow Canada to support its allies' launches, thereby strengthening our security partnerships and reinforcing our role as a reliable partner. This bill lays the essential groundwork for safe, secure and responsible commercial space launches and re-entries directly from Canada. It establishes a modern framework that accounts for risks, aligns with international best practices and is backed by robust oversight.”
“Canadian space launches are a competitive advantage that we must capitalize on now. Other countries are already moving to develop their own capabilities. If we do not act now, we risk watching investment flow elsewhere, to jurisdictions that move faster, with clearer rules and stronger incentives. Space is no longer a benign environment. It is increasingly contested, and our allies are investing heavily in space-based defence capabilities. They are strengthening their resilience against threats to satellites and ground infrastructure. They are ensuring they can quickly replace damaged assets, if required. Canada must do the same.”
“(1015) [ English ] The Canadian space launch bill is about ensuring that Canada can seize the economic opportunity, while also keeping our investments at home and repatriating our world-leading Canadian expertise. It is about strengthening our competitiveness, our economy and our national security. Now, some would ask: Why launch from Canada? The answer is simple, Canada has unique strengths that the world increasingly values. We have a long coastline that allows for safe launch corridors over open water. We have a stable political system, a predictable regulatory environment and, indeed, a highly skilled workforce. As existing global launch infrastructure approaches capacity, international companies are actively seeking alternative launch sites in stable, trusted countries.”
“Without launch capability, our country and our space industries will remain dependent on foreign nations for access to space. This increases costs, lengthens timelines and creates greater uncertainty for the sector. If we do not establish a modern and comprehensive framework for launches and re‑entry, we risk losing investment, talent and our competitive advantage. We risk seeing Canadian companies exporting their innovations abroad because they cannot launch them here at home. We risk becoming dependent on foreign launches at a time when access to space is becoming a matter of national security. We cannot let this happen any longer.”
“When our armed forces operate at home or abroad, satellites provide the communications, navigation and intelligence they rely on. Satellites are critical infrastructure. They are as essential to our economy and our well-being as roads, ports and power grids, but satellites are only as reliable as our ability to launch, maintain, defend and replace them. [ Translation ] This is why it is essential to have sovereign launch capability. By taking the appropriate steps, Canada will become a country capable of conducting commercial space launches, which will serve our national interests and support our allies. An important first step is to implement the Canadian space launch act. This legislation is urgently needed to support new economic growth, acquire a sovereign launch capability and prevent Canada from being left behind.”
“I encourage all parties and all members of the House to support the Canadian space launch act, not just for our sovereignty and not just for our economy but for every Canadian who relies on the technologies and services that space enables. The truth is simple. In 2026, space is no longer a distant frontier. It is an important part of our daily lives, our economy and our national security. Space is essential for our future. When Canadians tap their phone for directions, satellites guide them. When farmers optimize their crops, satellites provide the data. When we monitor wildfires, track marine traffic or respond to natural disasters, satellites are the backbone of our response. When planes cross the North Atlantic, satellites keep them connected and safe. When remote communities access broadband, satellites increasingly bridge the gap.”
“The legislation would deliver sovereign launch capabilities for Canada, attracting billions of dollars in investments, creating good-paying jobs, strengthening our sovereignty and building on Canada's proud history of innovations in space. The global space economy is currently undergoing a rapid transformation and expansion. In just the next six years, the global space economy will grow by more than 215% and be worth $1.5 trillion. We must urgently act to advance the legislation, because if we delay, Canadians will miss out on this enormous economic opportunity. With the passage of the legislation, we could create thousands of jobs and build our own domestic industry that is projected to be worth $40 billion. Sovereign space launch capabilities are not a partisan issue. They are a nation-building opportunity.”
“Countries around the world are in a mad dash to secure their share in a rapidly expanding space industry. Businesses are investing billions of dollars and demand for launch services is skyrocketing, while governments, researchers and private companies are deploying satellites at an unprecedented pace. Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. (1010) [ English ] Today, Canada is the only G7 country without its own sovereign space launch and re-entry capabilities. Right now, Canada has to rely on other countries to launch our satellites into orbit, even though the satellites support our infrastructure, our defence and about 20% of our economy. Canadian expertise, investments and jobs in this rapidly growing and important sector are leaving to go elsewhere, but today this would change, with the Canada space launch act.”
“Bill C-28. Second reading moved that Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great day for Canada to debate this bill. As we know, Canada has a long history of space exploration, a history of which we should be very proud. From Alouette 1, which made us only the third country in the world to launch a satellite into orbit, to the Canadarm, to the achievements of our astronauts, Canadians have always led the way to the stars. We have built a reputation as a trusted partner in space exploration. We are recognized for our excellence in robotics, earth observation, satellite communications and bold science missions. However, history alone will not secure our future.”
“Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Bloc Québécois claims, we are going to build up all the regions of Canada and all the regions found within Canada. That is why we are taking part in developing our ports, like Contrecœur and the Port of Québec, as announced last Friday. We are going to invest in our mines and in our mining sector. Yes, even against the member for Mirabel's wishes, we are going to invest in regions like the Laurentians, where our four members from the Upper and Lower Laurentians are going to get involved in building technology and diversification—”
“Mr. Speaker, even for the Leader of the Opposition, it is pretty hard to say that money that has not been spent yet is inflationary. We have not done it yet, although we will be building high-speed rail as part of our plan to build Canada strong. Let me keep going down the list. Is the Canada workers benefit inflationary spending? Is it the national school food program? Is it the Canada student loans? What exactly, in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition, is inflationary spending? Will he—”
“Mr. Speaker, inflation has been in the Bank of Canada's target zone for some time, but we are continuously intrigued by the notion of inflationary spending. I want to ask, and have the Leader of the Opposition answer with absolute clarity, is it the Canada child benefit that is inflationary? Is it the Canada disability benefit? Is it the Canadian dental care plan? Is it the groceries and essentials benefit? Is it old age security? Exactly what is inflationary spending in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a supermajority. That is an American term. Parliaments with a certain number of members do not have more power than Parliaments with a lower number of government members. What I would say in response to my hon. friend is that the current majority is no less legitimate than any other majority that has existed in Canadian history. We elect members of Parliament to the House. The member, my colleagues on this side of the House, and I are all elected as individuals. Yes, we wear a party label and we have a party banner, but we are elected to exercise our conscience and our judgment as we approach the House. The member knows, because I am sure she is living it, that many Canadians in opposition-held ridings expect their member of Parliament to be part of a positive solution for the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my hon. colleague, who comes from a region of this great country that is very special to me. The committee composition that the government is proposing does two things. It ensures that the chair of each committee will not have to routinely cast tie-breaking votes, because committee chairs, like the Speaker of the House, should not be settling debates. They should be called upon to do so only in exceptional circumstances. That is why we proposed the membership that we did. It is also because the other option would be to remove an opposition member from each committee, and we did not want to do that. We wanted the opposition parties to have the same level of representation as they do now.”
“Mr. Speaker, in fact, I think we agree on much more than we disagree on. We believe as well that, as my hon. colleague points out, the essence of this Parliament, of its institutions and of its committees is to hold governments to account and perform these kinds of examinations of laws, budgets, estimates and differing matters in terms of public policy, to ask probing questions and to demand accountability. That is the essence of our parliamentary democracy. None of that changes, of course, with the proceedings today. Committees retain the same powers, the same abilities and the same privileges that they have to call witnesses and compel documents and testimony. All of that continues, and we would argue that it is in our best democratic traditions that we are debating this matter today.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I have very different views on what it means to respect the people. I think that respecting the electorate, respecting the people, means respecting the traditions, precedents, norms and rules of our democratic institutions. I think that fighting the public cynicism that he mentioned means standing up and standing together for our democratic institutions. I think that today's proposal is a step in that direction.”
“Mr. Speaker, it may be a semantic debate, and it may be a pointless one, but there are no two tiers of committees. There may be committees with different job descriptions, as there should be when there are some 30 total committees of the House of Commons and joint committees with the Senate. Of course, committees are masters of their own agenda and their own destiny. They decide what to take up and they decide what to debate, and I am sure members on those committees would individually examine the merits of all proposals that come forward, whatever the source of those proposals, opposition or government, and make their own decisions on the merits of what is being proposed.”
“Mr. Speaker, for much of Canada's history, we have helped build the best country in the world by having committees, as the member points out, be the workhorses of Parliament, but they have done so collegially, cooperatively and by working together, and whatever the composition of the House of Commons, none of that is going to change. In fact, I would argue that we are maintaining and respecting the rules, the norms, the conventions and the traditions that the people who came before us have built together, and the composition of the House also being the composition of committees is the democratic way to get things done.”
“Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite. We believe that respecting democracy and our institutions means respecting the standards, conventions, traditions and rules that have been established over the years as we have built the best country in the world. I believe that the people of Rimouski, just like those of Gatineau, expect us to respect and uphold the finest traditions of our democracy. I would add that just recently, we were able to ask the people of Terrebonne what they thought. They clearly told us that they wish to continue along the path proposed by this government, and that is what we intend to implement with the new composition of the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Hamilton puts his finger on something very, very important, which is the need to fight cynicism. We must produce results in this place. Part of producing results in this place is respecting our traditions, respecting our democracy, respecting the institutions we have built together across party lines and over the years, and then implementing the plan we were sent here in election to implement. Indeed, our Prime Minister is having much success around the world and throughout our country in proposing measures and implementing our plan. We just want to get on with the job.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know the member's constituents nearly as well as she would, but my bet is that the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga want to send members here who respect, uphold and cherish the democracy we have built, one that has served our country so well and has helped build the best country in the world. That member's constituents, like my own in Gatineau, believe we should respect the rules. It is to fight cynicism that we uphold these principles and uphold these traditions and these conventions that we and the people who have come before us have put in place. Upholding them, respecting them and following the rules is how we build and maintain trust in our democracy and in our Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, we believe there is a very fundamental, yet incredibly simple principle at play here, which is that the institutions of our Parliament, including the committees of the House of Commons and obviously the committees we share with the Senate, be reflective of the composition of the House of Commons. This is a reasonably simple debate. We appreciate that there can be different perspectives, different arguments. We have heard those articulated during the first portion of this debate. I am sure we will hear them articulated throughout the course of today, but we believe that this is a reasonably simple principle and that Canadians expect us to get on with our normal work, which is building Canada strong.”
“He may be leaving himself open on that one, Mr. Speaker. I would say that Canadians who live in Conservative ridings are increasingly asking their members of Parliament to be a positive part of the solution and a positive part of meeting these major and converging international crises, wars, supply chain issues, obviously, trade threats and climate change. All of these threats are converging, and Canadians are demanding a comprehensive and comprehensible response to them. We believe that is what this government is offering. It should be no surprise that many opposition MPs and their constituents want to be a positive part of the solution.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this morning's motion is consistent with our finest parliamentary traditions, the ones we always uphold and to which we swear an oath about respecting our institutions, their precedents, their customs and their traditions. This has served our country very well. We believe that Canada is the best country in the world. The only thing we are giving ourselves is the right to continue to ensure that Canada remains a model democracy and that our democratic institutions reflect our finest traditions.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, but her suggestion would offend the very principles of the Westminster tradition that we are all sworn to uphold, whereby a majority in the Commons would represent a majority in the institutions of the Commons. All committees are equal. There are no tier one or tier two committees. Indeed, there are committees that provide oversight. Those functions are vital to the functioning of Parliament. Members on those committees, including the chairs, who the member correctly points out are members of the official opposition, retain all of the rights, all of the privileges and all of the abilities to send for witnesses, papers and evidence that they had previously. Suggesting that there has been a change in those committees' status would not be factual.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Naturally, good questions always come from the Outaouais. We did a search and looked for examples. We have to admit that the situation before us is highly unusual: a government that changed status during its mandate. The fact that we came within one or two hundred votes of winning a majority in Canada during the last election plays a part in this situation. It should therefore come as no surprise that certain adjustments and electoral events like by-elections have since changed things here in Parliament. I can tell my hon. colleague that we found no comparable examples. At the same time, however, there are no examples of a situation where a government that had a minority in the House held a majority of seats on committees.”
“Mr. Speaker, with all respect to my hon. friend, I need to challenge this notion that anything has been stolen. In fact, many Canadians appear to agree that much has been gained. One thing that has been gained is that the government can move quickly on getting things built in Canada and move to implement an economic agenda that seeks to insulate ourselves against world events, trade shocks, trade wars and all of the major developments happening in the world. This will represent a government that is resolute, strong and there for Canadians and their jobs, and that makes sure that our economy keeps moving forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a long tradition in this place and in Westminster parliaments in general that a majority in the chamber be reflected in all of the institutions of the House. This motion would simply respect and honour that tradition. Let us agree that it does not happen often that a government's status changes such that it grows to have a majority of seats in the elected chamber during the typical mandate of a government. This motion simply seeks to give effect to the long-held principle that governments that have a majority in the chamber have that majority reflected in the institutions of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 9, I give notice that at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister 's advisory council includes the president of Unifor. It includes the president of FTQ. Workers' interests will absolutely be represented on the advisory council. I was proud, just a couple of weeks ago, to visit Sault Ste. Marie, with my incredible colleague from Sault Ste. Marie, to visit Algoma Steel and to meet with the steelworkers to talk about the exciting future of building Canada strong, buying Canadian and seeing that electric arc furnace fired up. We are going to have a steel industry in Canada—”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his team, the ambassador and the ministers involved, we are prepared and ready and stand willing to negotiate in good faith a deal with the United States. It will not be any deal; it will be a deal acceptable for Canada. Contrast that with the Conservative position, with the member's colleague going to Washington and saying that Canadians are having a hissy fit and their getting up every day and systematically urging us to take any deal. We will not do that.”
“Mr. Speaker, we continue to engage with the Quebec government concerning temporary foreign workers. We know how much the regions of Quebec need workers. Nothing is sadder than an order going unfilled because of a shortage of workers. We are keenly aware of the situation described by my Bloc Québécois colleague, and we continue to engage with the Government of Quebec on this matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, all 343 of us must abide by some of the strictest ethics rules that exist in the world. The Prime Minister disposed of all his assets in a blind trust on the day of his election as Liberal Party leader, five days before he was sworn in as prime minister. He took this step on day one. Let us contrast that with the member's leader , who has been in the House for 20 years and still does not have a security clearance. The member needs to stand in his place and answer this: When his leader will get a security— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada will remain a leader in conventional energy and renewable energy. Canada will continue to build major projects that make us proud. I have an update. My colleague, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement is currently in Quebec City announcing more big news for the people in the Quebec City region, namely the designation of the Port of Québec as a first port of arrival. We will continue to build and create jobs and opportunities for Quebeckers and for our entire great country.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers will also benefit from our plan to build a very strong Canada. There was the announcement for a new graphite mine. We saw the opening of the Contrecoeur shipyard, a megaproject that will create thousands of jobs in the Montreal region, continue to fuel our supply chains and lower costs for Canadians. Quebeckers will be involved in re-energizing the Canadian economy, and we will continue to build a very strong Canada.”