House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
45th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 020
CONTENTS
Friday, June 20, 2025
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 020
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, June 20, 2025
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayer
[English]
Points of Order
The Application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-5
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order regarding the government's Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.
Standing Order 69.1(1) states:
In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.
In the case of Bill C-5, the bill would enact two separate laws. Part 1 would establish the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and part 2 would create the building Canada act. As stated in Bill C-5, part 1, “establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada.”
I want to pause here for a minute. A member just crossed in front of me twice as I was speaking, which is against the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I take it that you will note that for later on. I will continue on with my point of order.
Part 1 states, “It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada.”
The purpose of part 1 is to remove domestic trade barriers. In other words, it is an act to promote free trade and labour mobility within Canada. This was reinforced in the Minister of Transport's speech in reference to part 1 of the bill, when she succinctly said, “This is why it is so essential for us to press ahead with a project that costs nothing and can be accomplished at the stroke of a pen, delivering...free trade in Canada.” She also stated, “Free trade in our own country is a great idea whose time has come.”
Part 2, on the other hand, would be established so that projects deemed to be of “national interest are advanced through an accelerated process”. It is about the development of large-scale projects and the following is stated in the bill:
The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The government House leader, in his speech, stated, “Through the building Canada act, this bill will simplify federal review and approval processes for major infrastructure projects.” Part 2 of Bill C-5 has nothing to do with internal trade. These two parts of the bill should be treated as two separate bills.
In a ruling by Speaker Regan on March 1, 2018, he quoted the following: “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.”
The former House leader of the Bloc Québécois and former member for La Prairie—Atateken knew of this since it is from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec.
Speaker Regan continued as follows:
While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.
We find ourselves in a similar situation here. While the measures in Bill C-5 are broadly related to Canada's economy, part 1 is distinct from part 2. Therefore, it would certainly be appropriate to divide part 1 and part 2 of this bill for the vote.
The Speaker has that authority, and that would make it possible for members to better represent their constituents by voting separately on these bills, which are quite different from one another.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your ruling.
I would like to thank the member for that point of order. I will take it under advisement.
To the member's other point, there is a long-held rule in the House, a custom and a practice, that members are not allowed to cross between the person who is speaking and the Speaker. Over the past three to four weeks, members have been doing that. As a public service announcement, I would ask members to not cross between the person who is speaking, the member who was recognized, and the Speaker's chair. I know I will have to remind members of this again in the fall and then perpetually into the future.
I thank members for their attention.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
One Canadian Economy Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
[English]
There are 26 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-5.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12 to 14, 17, 20, 25 and 26 will not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee.
[English]
All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), regarding the selections of motions and amendments at the report stage.
Motions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21 to 24 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21 to 24 to the House.
[English]
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 9 with the following:
“tee of both Houses of Parliament, designated or established for the purposes of section 24, which shall
(a) include at least one member of the House of Commons from each party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in that House and at least the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, or his or her nominee, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, or his or her nominee, and the Leader or Facilitator who is referred to in any of paragraphs 62.4(1)(c) to (e) of the Parliament of Canada Act, or his or her nominee; and (b) have as its chair or joint chair, on the part of the House of Commons, a member of that House who is not a member of the government party.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 9 with the following:
“Act. Its chair or joint chair, on the part of the House of Commons, shall be a member of that House who is not a member of the government party.
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 12 on page 11 with the following:
“b) que tout titulaire de charge publique principal, au sens de”
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 12 with the following:
(c) detailed cost estimates that do not include private sector commercially sensitive financial information; and
moved, seconded by the member for Courtenay—Alberni:
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 13 with the following:
“participation of the affected Indigenous peoples and the public and that”
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 14 with the following: “dissolved.”;
(b) by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 19 with the following: “or dissolved.”;
(c) by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 20 with the following: “rogued or dissolved.”; and
(d) by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 20 with the following: “rogued or dissolved.”
Hon. Steven MacKinnon (for the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy)
moved: That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 15 with the following:
partments and agencies regarding the project;
(b) replacing lines 24 to 27 on page 15 with the following:
(4) The Minister must cause to be tabled a report containing the information set out in paragraphs (1)(a) to (e) in each House of Parliament and, at the request of 10 or more members of that House, must appear, to explain the Minister’s decisions in
[Translation]
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 19 the following:
“(b.1) the Canada Labour Code;”
[English]
moved, seconded by the member for Courtenay—Alberni:
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 19 the following:
“(m.1) the Species at Risk Act;”
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 21 with the following:
“Canada, including its prosperity and economic security, assured in part by the pursuit of the objectives”
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 21 with the following:
“set out in section 4 relating to the development of natural resources, energy products and related infrastructure, shared jurisdiction, public”
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 21 with the following:
“safety, national and international security, the facilitation of export markets, the quality of”
[Translation]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about a very important message that is rooted in the April 28 election.
Liberals throughout the country campaigned extensively, during a federal campaign, during which we heard some very common themes at the door. The predominant one was the issue of how, as a nation, we are going to be able to face the threat of potential tariffs, concerns about trade and President Donald Trump from the United States.
There was a great deal of concern about what was taking place. We can reflect on what was happening during the election, and we saw that, for Canadians, there was that contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives. On the one hand, we had a leader who was a former governor of the Bank of Canada. By the way, he had actually been appointed by Stephen Harper at the time. The Leader of the Liberal Party also had the background of being a former governor of the Bank of England. He is an economist, someone who truly understood how an economy works.
Contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party, who is a career politician. Personally, I do not have anything against career politicians. Some might say that I am one, too, but I do know that, during the election, that weighed heavily on the minds of Canadians.
We had the right leader at the right time going into a federal election, and he was able to address the concerns of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as much as I am enjoying this harangue, what is the relevance to Bill C-5?
As the member knows, there is a wide latitude for members during debate.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that members opposite would be somewhat more respectful when members are speaking.
At the end of the day, when the voters spoke on April 28, they sent a very strong message to all members of the House that the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, had a mandate to build one economy instead of the 13 that we currently have in the country, and that is what the legislation is all about.
If we look at the election platform on page 1, if we look at the throne speech and if we look at the announcements made by the Prime Minister, we will see that the primary focus is to build one strong, healthy economy. The strongest economy in the G7 is the goal; that is something that the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament are four-square behind. The focus of the government has been to enhance and build on that theme, and that is why we have Bill C-5 before us today, because the people of Canada were concerned about the economy, jobs and the direction that we were going in.
There is a new Prime Minister and a new administration, with a focus on building our economy. When we think in terms of trade and in terms of opportunities, there is a special focus in regard to exploring ways in which we can trade with other countries around the world, expanding our opportunities.
We have a Prime Minister who, just over two weeks ago, met with all the first ministers, all the premiers of provinces and territories across the country, about the idea of building the one Canadian economy. There have been provinces that have taken initiatives to build upon that. We have to be able to demonstrate here on the floor of the House of Commons that we are listening to what Canadians want and to their expectations. Their expectations are that there would be a high sense of co-operation, political parties aside, focused on what is in the best interest of Canadians, and that is exactly what our new Prime Minister has done.
We met with first ministers of all political stripes. When meeting with indigenous leaders and with all the different stakeholders to date, the first priority has been Canadians and building our economy. That is what we are striving to do. Imagine April 28 to six or seven weeks later; look at what we have been able to accomplish in that very short period of time. We can talk about legislative measures, such as Bill C-5, which we are talking about today, which in essence captures the one Canadian economy by looking at special projects and encouraging labour mobility, in law.
We also have Bill C-2, which is to strengthen our borders. It is a tangible investment, not only from a legislative perspective but also from a budgetary perspective, where we would commit to 1,000 more CBSA officers and 1,000 more RCMP officers. This would have a real impact on making our borders that much more secure, dealing with issues such as extortion and illegal immigration of different forms. These are the types of things—
An hon. member: Fentanyl.
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, it deals with fentanyl too, a very serious issue here in Canada. In fact, around the world, fentanyl is a serious issue. As a government, we are looking at ways in which we can protect Canadians, and that is Bill C-2, not to mention Bill C-4.
Bill C-4 is the legislation that would put into law the tax cut for Canadians. Contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, it would be a substantial tax cut through which people would realize, in a fiscal year, over $800, for an average family with two workers in the home. They could get up to $840, I believe. It is a significant amount of money. There are 22 million taxpayers who would benefit by that—
[Translation]
Points of Order
Voting Table for Report Stage of Bill C-5
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's ruling on the Bloc Québécois's motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-5 states that Motions No. 2, 3, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 20, which I moved, seconded by the member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, would not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee.
In actual fact, they could not have been presented in committee because it was after midnight when we proceeded to clause-by-clause consideration. Since it was after midnight, we could no longer vote separately on the various clauses, so I could not force a vote on the clauses in question.
The purpose of these motions is to identify certain clauses on which the House must hold a separate vote.
I hope that you will reconsider your decision in light of this information.
I thank the member for his intervention and for communicating this information to the Chair.
I will take this information under advisement and come back to the House with my ruling later today.
[English]
Returning to the debate, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.
One Canadian Economy Act
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Speaker, in a 10-minute speech, there have already been two interruptions. I would encourage members to be a little more courteous.
I would suggest taking a look at the legislation. I referenced Bill C-4, and it would be a tax break for Canadians not only in terms of their tax policy but also in terms of first-time homebuyers. First-time homebuyers who are purchasing a new home would actually get a GST exemption on it, up to a significant amount of a tax break for those first-time homebuyers, thereby making homes more affordable and ultimately increasing the number of houses being built.
These are substantial legislation measures and substantial budgetary measures that we have seen in a very short window. We made an investment, for example, of two—
[Translation]
Points of Order
The Application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C‑5
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something to the point of order raised by my colleague from Vancouver East.
I would like to mention that the Bloc Québécois also sent a letter to the governing party. I would like to read two paragraphs regarding our request to split Bill C‑5.
We believe that a bill on trade and labour would progress more quickly if it were assessed individually and on its own merits. Conversely, in its current form, the part of Bill C‑5 that your government refers to as the “Building Canada Act” could potentially hinder the adoption of other important measures in the current context of economic uncertainty.
Splitting this bill in two, as we propose, would show the public the collaborative attitude that it expects from our respective political parties in the newly elected minority Parliament. The course of action we are proposing is both proactive and open when it comes to the economy, yet rigorous and prudent when it comes to respecting environmental standards, the principle of social acceptability and the jurisdictions of Quebec.
I thank the hon. member for sharing this new information with the Chair.
As I mentioned earlier, the Chair will make a decision later.
[English]
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, when a member is standing and speaking, especially if it is a relatively short speech, I think that as a common courtesy at times, it would be much nicer if members could wait until the end of the speech. It is very interruptive, especially if one is not speaking from notes. I would think that, going forward, additional consideration should be given that when members are interrupted, you might want to consider resetting the clock at times.
I thank the parliamentary secretary for that point of order, but since the Speaker has the right to recognize any member of the House on a point of order, and since I do not know the contents of the point of order when it is raised, I have to listen to the issue at hand. I understand where the parliamentary secretary is coming from, but he is a very seasoned member who does rise quite often in the House, and I am sure he will get his full time.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader does have the floor.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with respect to the earlier point of order from the Bloc Québécois on the ability to move amendments, the reality is that, at 12 o'clock, amendments were still being voted on. In fact, they were deemed moved, and so there was no inability to have an amendment moved after 12 o'clock.
I thank the member for the additional information for the Speaker. Again, I will take that information, and the Speaker and the clerks will come back with a decision later today.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a new point of order.
Mr. Speaker, given that I have only about a minute or a minute and a half left, I wonder whether you would canvass the House to ensure that there are no other points of order, so that I can get that full minute and a half without an interruption.
One Canadian Economy Act
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that our election mandate is to build a strong, healthy economy, an economy that is the strongest in the G7. We have a new Prime Minister, a new administration. In a very short window, whether it is for legislation or budgetary measures, what we have witnessed, I believe, is a Prime Minister and a Liberal government that are committed to serving Canadians every day in order to build the dream that Canadians have. I for one am very grateful for the opportunity to be able to do that.
On a final note, I would like to thank a very special person who works in our MP lobby: Sarah is a wonderful research person and has been a great support over the years, and I thank her.
Mr. Speaker, we can always tell the level of truthiness from the member's speech. The louder he gets, the less factual it is. So, we can certainly hear the level of truthiness, I guess, in today's speech.
The member talks about the one strong economy, and yet the government is a government that helped kill pipelines, energy east, which now leaves us bringing in $20 billion a year of oil from from Donald Trump's America instead of bringing it in from Alberta. The Liberals are keeping the unconstitutional Bill C-69, the “no new pipeline” ban; they are keeping the oil and gas cap, which is going to drive out many thousands of jobs; and the Quebec lieutenant says, “No more pipelines”. The resource minister cannot even say the word “pipeline” in the House. How is that building one strong Canada?
Mr. Speaker, really and truly, the Conservative Party knows absolutely no shame. When Stephen Harper and the member's leader, Pierre Poilievre, sat around the cabinet table, do members know that they did not build one inch of pipeline to tidewaters? They talk a lot about it, but they were an absolute, total disaster in terms of building any pipeline. The Liberal Party has nothing to learn in terms of building a pipeline to tidewaters, because Pierre Poilievre was an absolute, total failure when it came to building a pipeline in the 10 years in which he sat on the government benches.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a question.
We have studied the bill in committee. Every time we debate a bill at second reading and point out gaps or problems, we are systematically told that these matters can be cleared up when the bill is sent to committee. We are assured that the bill can be improved at that stage.
However, in actual fact, when we examined this bill in committee, very few witnesses were heard. Worse still, the committee had very few hours to study the bill.
Therefore, I would like to ask the member opposite a specific question. How is it that his government, which claims to be so open and so unifying, rejected every single amendment put forward in committee?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it was not just the Liberals. The Liberals worked with the Conservatives to bring in the closure and time allocation motions, which actually set the time frame in terms of how long the committee would meet. There were some restrictions.
The members should be a little more straightforward in telling the full truth in the sense that there were many amendments, some of them Bloc amendments, that actually passed at the committee stage as well. I assume that the Bloc members at committee did have some consultation before they proposed those amendments.
Mr. Speaker, during the member opposite's presentation, we heard him talk about Stephen Harper.
Stephen Harper was the prime minister more than a decade ago and had great success in developing Canada's economy. However, for the last 10 years, it was that member and his Liberal government, with Justin Trudeau, who introduced legislation that stymied the growth of Canada's economy and sent billions to dictatorships and to the United States. The member is here talking about a new government but also wants to talk about Justin Trudeau and his success.
Can the member stand up and say that he is proud of the work of Justin Trudeau and that he stands with Bill C-69 and the other job-killing bills that he passed with that government?
Mr. Speaker, I have a reality check for the member. If we contrast the Trudeau administration to the Harper administration, we will find that the Trudeau administration created close to two million jobs in just under 10 years. Contrast that to one million jobs with Stephen Harper.
If we want to talk about the manufacturing industry, we can take a look at what happened in Ontario. Stephen Harper virtually destroyed the manufacturing industry in Ontario during that 10-year period of time. I would have no problem doing a comparison at any time on that issue.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 proves one thing for certain: The Liberals broke the system, and Canadians pay the price. An unprecedented $5 trillion of Canadian capital went south and into other countries, and they killed $670 billion in major natural resource projects that could have been built by Canadians with Canadian aluminum and steel for Canada's economic strength, self-reliance, security and unity. In five years alone, 16 major projects were sidelined because of them. It cost Canadians over $176 billion in lost nuclear, critical mineral mines, LNG terminals, pipelines, indigenous-led projects and energy corridors delayed or derailed by lawsuits, bureaucracy, delay and Liberal policies.
Imagine how powerful and self-reliant Canada would be today. Instead, Canada ranks last in the G7 for development, and the Liberals now scramble to patch what they themselves destroyed. Bill C-5 would not fix the fundamentals. It admits failure, with hundreds of thousands of Canadian job losses and more to come, unaffordable power and fuel, and skyrocketing costs of essentials. What the Liberals have to do is what the Conservatives said all along. They should scrap Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the federal industrial carbon tax, the Canadian oil and gas cap and all their other antidevelopment policies and laws.
Proponents today still face unclear rules, no concrete timelines, interference and limited transparency. As the transport minister said herself in committee, “we have come to a place in Canada where we have such a thicket of processes, rules and regulations...that we are unable to build with the alacrity that this moment in time requires.” It is not during just this current moment that major projects cannot get built in Canada with brisk and cheerful readiness. That has been the worsening reality of the last decade of Liberal antidevelopment laws, policies and messages. That dense, cumbersome thicket was created by the very same government that claims to be new while half the ministers are the old ones.
Conservatives offer real solutions: to cut red tape, gatekeepers and taxes; to create clear rules; to attract private investment; and to fast-track major projects for the benefit of all Canadians. The place the Liberals should start is with all the projects stuck in the federal queue right now, such as the Ksi Lisims LNG project, LNG Canada phase two and Bruce Power upgrades, and they should be looking at the dedicated west coast export pipeline to serve Asian energy demand that they killed 10 years ago and indigenous-backed roads to unlock the Ring of Fire. They are in the national interest, and they are waiting for a green light. They should be on the national interest list and fast-tracked yesterday.
Nevertheless, Conservatives worked in good faith with other opposition parties and with the Liberals to help improve Bill C-5, and here I want to thank the Conservative team for all its efforts. It will be up to the Liberals to deliver on their rhetoric and to keep up all their big, but vague, promises to Canadians. It will ultimately be up to Canadians to determine whether they do, and Conservatives will hold them accountable in the meantime.
Even now, Bill C-5 sets up a politically driven and determined process. Ministers will decide who goes ahead and who waits. They can even one day decide a project that they said was in the national interest earlier is no longer and remove it from the list or whatever ad hoc review a responsible minister determines. This is a problem I tried to fix: inherent uncertainty, huge powers behind closed doors and not a permanent fix or way to regulate and review projects in the sector most important to Canada's economy, imperative to help turn poverty into prosperity and to help lower emissions globally.
Bill C-5 blurs the lines, just as Bill C-69 did. What is worse is that the Liberals know it. At committee, the Canada-U.S. trade minister admitted, quote, whoever puts forward these projects, be they public, private, indigenous, provincial or municipal, does not have to go through an evaluation and approvals process that could take five to six years. He admits the Liberal system takes years and delays building. It is not clear whether projects that are actually in provincial or municipal jurisdiction may end up in the Bill C-5 queue for a federal review, which would be a similar overreach problem to that in Bill C-69. The mix of public and private infrastructure should cause taxpayers to take notice too, but again the obvious first step should be to fix that whole evaluations and approvals process the minister himself says is too long.
Proponents and the government itself are trapped by the red tape they imposed. Still, Bill C-5 does not fix it for everyone; it will fast-track a chosen few. At first, it did not even define “national interest”, which left every decision to the whims of cabinet and a lack of clarity for everyone involved, but Conservatives fought to require the government to define national interest with clear, specific criteria. We succeeded in adding that necessary clarity and structure to a process that started with none.
Conservatives also successfully incorporated the requirement of a public list of national interest projects, with timelines, estimated costs and rationale; application of the Conflict of Interest Act to officials and proponents to prevent abuse and prevent politically connected insiders from pursuing personal profit over the public interest behind closed doors; mandatory national security reviews for hostile regimes and state-owned investments into major national interest projects to combat foreign interference and economic imperialism from adversaries and to protect Canadian sovereignty and security; a requirement for the government to fully deliver on its mandatory duty to consult and a clear map for indigenous consultation, with public reporting to build trust, earn confidence and respect indigenous rights and title so that major projects can get to yes in a good way, with minimization of predictable court challenges and delays; and annual independent reviews of project progress so all Canadians can measure the Liberals by their actions, not just their words, and hold them accountable.
These amendments matter. They bring transparency, accountability, more certainty, more clarity and integrity to a bill that originally had none.
However, even with these improvements, major concerns remain. Bill C-5 would still allow ministers the power to remove a project from the national interest list at any time, without notice, reason or recourse. I proposed to remove the power to take projects off the list once they make the cut, because that uncertainty may continue to push investors and builders to other countries with clearer rules and more predictability, just as the Liberals have done to Canada for the past decade.
Since delay is death to major projects, Conservatives also aimed to give concrete timelines that do not actually exist in Bill C-5, despite all the Liberals' claims about a two-year process. I proposed a one-year deadline to issue permits once a project is designated; a 90-day limit for the Governor in Council, the cabinet, to make final decisions; and a requirement to prioritize private or public-private funding to protect taxpayers, to prioritize private funding. Canada should be a place where the private sector can take big risks and build big things on its time and on its dime, not where taxpayers have to be on the hook to get anything done.
The Liberals rejected those amendments.
Then I brought forward an amendment to apply the Conflict of Interest Act to enforce clearer safeguards to prevent corruption and block Liberals from stacking the deck in favour of their friends. This should not be necessary, of course, but we have a Prime Minister who hides his conflicts and where he pays his taxes, and who ran to make the company Brookfield invested in all the kinds of projects that Bill C-5 would fast-track, although under the Prime Minister, it mostly invested in the U.S. and abroad. This caused a flurry and a huddle among Liberal MPs, a couple of odd questions, and then the Liberals voted against it. Thanks to Conservative pressure and support from another opposition party, we forced the government to follow its own laws designed to prevent corruption and to put the public interest ahead of partisanship.
Conservatives also got limits put on cabinet to prevent it from exempting 15 foundational laws that no government should ever sidestep. All Canadians can be forgiven for wondering why the Liberals would have presented such a potentially significant law free from all of those laws in the first place. Conservatives pushed crucial amendments to ensure provincial consultation and to protect provincial jurisdiction and provincial decision-making power, because what the Liberals must show is that they can ensure big projects in federal jurisdiction can be built for Canada's economic strength, security and national unity, not meddle in others. They have to find a will, a spine, a set that they have failed to show in the past decade in order to enforce their own jurisdiction, to treat the national interest approvals according to the general advantage of Canada and to uphold legal and jurisdictional certainty so that proponents can build their projects when approvals face challenges and obstruction. Otherwise, this will all be big talk and a lot of delays without fixing the real problems, which are the antidevelopment laws and policies the Liberals themselves decided they needed this queue-jumping Bill C-5 to work around.
Conservatives' work continues today, with subamendments to clarify and fix flaws. We proposed a parliamentary committee with a nongovernment Chair. No government should judge its own actions. Democratic accountability anchors this principle, so the subamendment strengthens review with independent, balanced representation across parties. Canadians expect transparency, not spectacle. They expect real checks, not blanket approval.
Canada holds vast potential. Natural resources, energy and infrastructure sustain millions of jobs, fund public services, build communities and bolster global trade. Any bill for national development must reflect this reality and champion, not hinder, the sectors that drive prosperity. Canadians need an approach that does not curb ambition, repel investment or deny opportunity. Canada cannot tolerate a framework that casts resource development as a threat rather than a strength. Canada demands confidence, not caution, and momentum, not paralysis.
Conservatives champion responsible resource development, independent oversight and a united Canada, and our amendments to Bill C-5 uphold those values. Conservatives believe in strong paycheques and unity through opportunity, not division and double standards through federal overreach. We believe in reconciliaction through—
Mr. Speaker, as I emphasized during my comments, we have a new Prime Minister, who brought all the first ministers together, and they had very successful discussions. We had individuals like Doug Ford, a progressive Conservative in Ontario, working along with Wab Kinew, a New Democrat from Manitoba: different premiers, different political parties, working with a Liberal national government, building a team Canada approach to building a stronger and healthier country. I am grateful that the Conservatives saw the light to support Bill C-5. We appreciate that.
I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts in regard to having a team Canada approach to building these projects, which include the stakeholders and beyond: indigenous concerns, premiers' concerns and many others.
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives will not stand in the way of the Liberals' sudden and often diametrically opposed to the tenures of their own words and actions efforts to get Canada working and building, as Conservatives have called on them to do the entire time. We are hopeful, but we do remain skeptical that Bill C-5 can fully solve the problem of the current broken federal regulatory mess that the Liberals made.
We believe in reconciliaction and know that indigenous people want to pursue equity, ownership and more powers of development and self-determination with their own rights and title. That is why the government should heed the words of the various chiefs who participated and of the AFN national chief, who cautioned that because of the lack of clarity around the duty to consult in Bill C-5, which Conservatives tried to fix, all approvals out of this may face court challenges, which will delay building. The Liberals need to fix that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Lakeland a question. First, we can all agree that supporting a closure motion is absolutely stupid and unreasonable. We can also agree that, in terms of the environment, the Conservatives are once again lagging behind.
I would, however, like to point out a way in which the member was able to play an important role at report stage. The Indian Act was removed from schedule 2, so the government can no longer override the act or remove fundamental rights. We can agree that we are not talking about free, prior and informed consent, and we would have liked Bill C‑5 to address that, which it does not. An important step was made in committee, however, and indigenous stakeholders themselves have recognized it. I want to thank my colleague and the Conservatives for their co-operation on this.
What does my colleague think of the fact that the Liberals did not vote for this amendment?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I think it betrays the lie the Liberals have been peddling for 10 years, which is that the most important relationship to them is with indigenous people. They have a track record of killing major research projects and pipelines that indigenous people worked years and years to negotiate in a good way with big companies to secure their own source revenue for self-sufficiency and self-reliance. There are big questions about how on earth the Liberals could try to bring in this law that exempted 16 different acts and six different policies, including the Indian Act.
I appreciate my colleague's comments and thank him for his collaboration. This is the major issue that the Liberals must get right; otherwise, they risk and threaten getting to yes in a good way, which every single Canadian and indigenous person in this country deserves.
Mr. Speaker, this is a little bit out of the scope of my colleague's file, but the Liberals really missed a key opportunity with this piece of legislation. Over seven million Canadians are without a primary care physician. We are in a mental health crisis within our country, and they could have very easily included provisions for a blue seal program within this bill.
I would like to hear our hon. colleague's comments.
Mr. Speaker, this is part of the concern we have with the government bringing forward a bill where it is trying to fix the mess that it made itself.
Maybe I will just take this opportunity to acknowledge my colleague for all of his passionate, dedicated, steadfast advocacy for health, mental health and wellness for men and all Canadians and congratulate him on the successful passage of the 988 line, which is a lifeline for vulnerable and at-risk Canadians. Congratulations to him. We are so proud to have him on our team.
Points of Order
Voting Pattern for Report Stage of Bill C-5
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to the upcoming votes at report stage on Bill C-5. Page 788 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:
When the Speaker selects and groups motions in amendment, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting, that is, the Speaker determines the order in which the motions in amendment will be called and the effect of one vote on the others. The purpose of the voting scheme is to obviate any requirement for two or more votes on the same issue.
The Speaker delivers his or her decision regarding the grouping of motions in amendment after the order for the consideration of report stage of the bill has been read. The Speaker informs the House of the motions in amendment that he or she has selected and grouped for debate, the voting arrangements, and, where applicable, the motions in amendment that have not been selected, stating the reasons for this. Speakers have sometimes intervened at a later stage of the debate to revise the selection and grouping for debate of the motions in amendment.
It is with respect to this latter point I am now rising. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, you have grouped Motions Nos. 18 and 19. Motion No. 18, sponsored by my Bloc Québécois colleague, seeks to add the Canada Labour Code to the list of laws that are carved out from the scope of clauses 21 and 22 of the proposed building Canada act, the so-called Henry VIII clauses in the bill. Motion No. 19, sponsored by the Green member, would seek to add the Species at Risk Act to that same list. One concerns workers' rights, and the other is environmental in nature. These are, I would suspect, very distinct policy fields and merit separate votes.
Moreover, on procedural grounds, I would note that the Species at Risk Act is already listed in the building Canada act's proposed schedule 2. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands had proposed a companion amendment in Motion No. 26, which would have removed it from the list, but this motion was not selected for debate today.
This means that the substantive effect of the motion concerning the Canada Labour Code, if adopted, would be that this law may never be added to schedule 2. On the other hand, the combined effect of the rulings on Motions Nos. 19 and 26, if Motion No. 19, respecting the Species at Risk Act, is adopted, would be that this law may not be added back to schedule 2, should it ever be removed by the Governor in Council at some point in the future.
In summary, Motions Nos. 18 and 19 are two separate motions proposed by members from two separate parties concerning very different subject matter and with two different procedural implications. In other words, separate votes on Motions Nos. 18 and 19 would not amount to two votes on the same issue.
Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that this is a textbook instance for the Chair to exercise the authority described in Bosc and Gagnon to revisit and revise the voting pattern established for the report stage of Bill C-5.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thank my colleague from Northumberland—Clarke for his point of order. I agree with what he just said because, when we look at the two amendments that have been grouped together, one of which I myself brought forward, we see that the proposals clearly relate to completely different subjects. Members might very well want to vote in favour of one and against the other, which would mean that the Canada Labour Code might not be excluded, as my colleague also pointed out very clearly. I personally would also prefer that these two amendments be split so that we can have completely separate votes.
One Canadian Economy Act
[Government Business]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Speaker, today is the last day we will sit before summer. Usually, on the last day, everyone has a smile on their face. They are in a good mood and they are patting themselves on the back. I would suggest that such is not really the case today. That is not the case because we are finishing our work with a gag order on Bill C-5, a gag order that, incidentally, does not have consensus. We barely had time to study the bill in committee or in the House. In fact, the gag order came in before we even started debate on Bill C‑5.
Normally, when a committee study is completed and there has been some co-operation between the parties, enough amendments have been made to the bill to make it decent, or at least palatable and something we can live with. Generally, the priority is to remove most of the irritants from the bill, and we are able to say that we have at least done that. This time, that is not the case. This time, we are not in a good mood about the bill or about the work done in committee, because we did not have an opportunity to do any real work.
It is particularly sad because closure is generally imposed when a bill has stagnated, when there has been no progress on a bill for months, when there is filibustering. This time, we did not even have time for it to stagnate. There was no time for a filibuster because we did not have time to talk about the bill in the first place. It is sad because not so long ago, we moved an amendment to the government's closure motion that would have granted us more hours of consideration in committee. Instead of having just two hours on Tuesday, we would have had 14 hours, which would have enabled a good number of witnesses to appear. We almost reached an agreement before going to committee. It seemed as if it was going to go ahead, but apparently there were last-minute negotiations behind the scenes, some shenanigans between the government and the Conservatives. As a result of those shenanigans, that did not come to pass, and people who had been called to testify were told by the clerk that they would not be testifying after all. Those are witnesses who had taken time off work, had planned to drive for hours or had already started driving, and could have even boarded a plane. Those witnesses were ultimately told they were not going to testify. What do you make of that, Mr. Speaker? I know you cannot answer, but it makes no sense. It was a lousy way to treat these people. They were treated without respect.
A lot of witnesses, including members of environmental groups, would have appreciated the opportunity to testify about Bill C‑5. However, no witnesses from environmental groups were able to give evidence on Bill C‑5 because the Bloc Québécois was allowed only two witnesses for the duration of the study. That is absolutely ridiculous. More than 60% of the witnesses, whose names we submitted and who were supposed to testify, were ultimately told they could not, even though the clerk had already called to ask them to testify. The whole thing is unbelievable. I consider this a terrible disservice to democracy. It brings shame on this Parliament to have sunk so low. What this government was actually trying to do was to muzzle them. It wanted to deny them a voice. It wanted to silence them and silence their criticism. That is how this government operates.
Worse still, by the time the witnesses appeared in committee, it was too late for us to move amendments. Regardless of what the witnesses had to say, we could not even listen to them or integrate their comments into the bill. That way of doing things makes no sense whatsoever. It is a disgrace, and I hope Quebec society will remember this. I actually hope Canadian society will remember it, too. I know first nations will remember, environmental groups will remember and francophone communities outside Quebec will remember. I know a lot of Quebeckers and unions will remember, too.
When a government seizes all power for itself, disregards the democratic process and refuses to listen to criticism, that is a serious and dangerous situation. It is bad enough that the Conservatives helped them do it, but it is worse still that the Liberals did not vote in favour of one single amendment proposed in committee. They could not have cared less. Like masters, like kings on earth, they had already made all the decisions. That is how this government operates.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Bayview Village Association
Mr. Speaker, as they say, the best time to plant a tree was yesterday. Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the annual tree giveaway held by the Bayview Village Association. Each year, the BVA offers residents trees and shrubs that are native to Toronto and suited for our urban environment, and it holds a workshop on how to properly plant them. I advise the House of this great community effort because trees reduce flooding and erosion, provide shade, decrease heating and cooling costs and clean the air.
I want to take this occasion to thank the Bayview Village Association and acknowledge the natural care and strong community spirit that exist in the BVA. I commend the team of volunteers involved for helping us breathe a little easier. In my riding, it is not just trees that are growing; it is the community spirit.
Manitoba Baseball Hall of Fame
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two exceptional constituents of Brandon—Souris. Last Saturday, Souris residents Murray Zuk and the late Bill Kirkup were inducted as honorary life members into the Manitoba Baseball Hall of Fame.
Murray Zuk helped found the Hall of Fame and Museum, serving as a director since its inception in 1997, with a significant career as a baseball scout and organizer in Manitoba, all while maintaining a remarkable career as principal of Souris School.
The late Bill Kirkup was a builder and loved the game of baseball. He committed countless hours to promoting teams and various leagues throughout Manitoba and western Canada, in addition to supporting countless other initiatives and causes in our community. If there was a project to get done in Souris, it was very likely that Bill Kirkup was involved.
To Murray, his wife Donni and the Zuk family; and to Bill's wife Sheila and the Kirkup family, I thank them both for a lifetime of service to the great game of baseball, to our hometown of Souris and to Manitoba. We are certainly better off because of the lives of Murray Zuk and the late Bill Kirkup.
Dan's Legacy
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the residents of New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville for placing their trust in me.
I ran on a platform prioritizing mental health, and I am proud to bring that voice into Parliament. New Westminster is known as the recovery city, and one organization living that vision is Dan's Legacy, a local charity supporting at-risk youth through counselling, housing, food security and job training. Its new initiative, Dan's Diner, trains youth to run a restaurant while learning essential life skills.
While harm reduction saves lives, Dan's Legacy focuses on harm prevention, intervening early. Last year, it helped over 800 youth avoid homelessness and addiction.
[Translation]
It is an inspiring model that promotes resilience, dignity and compassion.
[English]
As Parliament takes on the work ahead, I will continue advocating for community-based mental health care so that every young person can thrive.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, how many women have to be beaten half to death before the government stops giving repeat offenders a free pass?
Hugh Mason is 34 years old with a violent history that reads like a warning label: assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, resisting arrest, theft, breaching probation. Over and over again, in just three years, he has been hauled into court and released 37 times, and now he is on video shoving a woman into the street, brutally kicking and punching her as she crawls away for her life.
That happened last week, just a few kilometres from my home in Langley. I walk those streets. My kids and grandkids walk those streets. It is happening because the government is protecting violent criminals rather than innocent Canadians.
Why will the Liberal government not fix the broken bail system and stop putting dangerous predators back on the streets?
[Translation]
Gens du pays
Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, on June 20, 1975, the legendary Gilles Vigneault performed his song, Gens du pays, for the very first time on Mount Royal in Montreal. On stage, three Quebec music greats, Gilles Vigneault, Louise Forestier, and Yvon Deschamps, sang the now-famous lyrics that ring out during our national holiday celebrations as well on as birthdays.
Gens du pays is one of the greatest gifts to francophone song. It is a classic, an anthem for Quebeckers. It is a testimony to our collective memory. This year, our national holiday will give us an opportunity to pay tribute to this iconic song. The singer from Natashquan will be proud to hear his words, which unite us and bring us together, being sung throughout Quebec.
I would like to thank Mr. Vigneault for leaving such a lasting impression on our culture. I wish everyone a happy national holiday.
[English]
East Elgin Secondary School Mural
Mr. Speaker, Canada Day may still be a couple of weeks away, but the students of East Elgin Secondary School are already putting their pride in our great country on display.
Over 30 grade 10 art students, led by teachers Robert Ponzio and Aimee Sawyers, have spent months crafting a magnificent 16-foot-by-20-foot mural of a Canadian flag made up of self-portraits of all of the young artists. The masterpiece is called On Guard for Thee. It is a vibrant and patriotic expression of the community's diversity and Canadian identity.
The project was supported by the Royal Canadian Legion branches in Port Burwell and Aylmer, and some of the communities' veterans have already had a chance to take it in. Those who have served and helped build our country get to see the spirit of Canada alive in the next generation. The mural has already been showcased at the Aylmer legion and will soon be presented at the Old Imperial Market.
The teachers and students hope to bring their work of art to the provincial capital and eventually on to Ottawa to share their love of Canada with as many people as possible.
Congratulations to all the artists. Go, Eagles.
Rockslide in Banff
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a devastating rockslide on the Banff Icefields Parkway near Bow Glacier Falls resulted in the loss of a life and injured many.
I offer my heartfelt condolences to the family who lost their loved one, and I am wishing a speedy recovery to all those who were injured. We are grateful for the heroic efforts of our first responders, including Parks Canada staff, local firefighters, the RCMP, Alberta Health Services and STARS air ambulance for their swift and courageous efforts to provide emergency care and ensure public safety under difficult circumstances.
This is a stark reminder of the unpredictable power of nature, even in places we cherish most for their beauty and tranquility. Emergencies like this highlight the need to improve our cellular and communication services in remote areas.
For all those planning to visit our beautiful parks this summer, please plan ahead and stay safe.
[Translation]
National Indigenous Peoples Day
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, June 21, is National Indigenous Peoples Day. Let us draw inspiration from the summer solstice and celebrate the cultures, languages, and contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples from time immemorial to the present day, and especially to tomorrow and for the next seven generations.
This is also an opportunity to build relationships and talk about mutual respect, a conversation that was ignored with Bill C-5. This bill was designed so that Ottawa can impose energy projects on indigenous peoples and then inform them of already irreversible decisions through bogus consultations. In Bill C-5, the Liberals have replicated the condescending and colonialist attitude that the federal government had toward the first peoples in the last century.
Today, we will find out whether the Bloc Québécois's amendment will make it possible to correct the situation at the last minute because we want to remove the Indian Act from schedule 2 of the bill. Bill C-5 shows how indigenous peoples, but also all Quebeckers and Canadians who care about—
Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester Graduates
Mr. Speaker, as the school year ends, I rise to congratulate the graduates in Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester. Earning one's diploma is something to be very proud of. They worked hard, overcame challenges and continued to persevere.
Today they are celebrating much more than a diploma. They are celebrating the efforts, growth and discoveries that brought them to this point. It is also the beginning of a new chapter. Whether they are entering the workforce, continuing their studies or exploring new horizons, there are great things ahead for them.
I am very proud to say that my daughter is part of that cohort this year. Congratulations to Isabelle and all the graduates.
To the families, teaching staff, support staff and mentors, I say thank you for being there for them every step of the way.
I would remind the graduates that their journey has only just begun. Congratulations to everyone.
[English]
B.C. Ferries
Mr. Speaker, last week B.C. Ferries announced that it will purchase four new full-sized ferries from a Chinese Communist Party state-owned shipyard rather than a Canadian shipyard. Indeed, our shipyards cannot compete with China's cheap labour, lower safety standards and poor environmental regulations. Canadian union workers, industries and shipyards all feel betrayed. The Minister of Transport stated that this is not a federal issue, despite the Liberals subsidizing B.C. Ferries to the tune of $36 million a year. The fact remains that hundreds of millions of dollars will be sent to a Chinese state-controlled shipyard, supporting China's economy and its workers.
Earlier this week, the Minister of Transport stated that she shared her concerns in a letter sent to B.C. Will the Minister of Transport please share specifically who she sent the letter to in B.C.? Will she make the letter public for all to see?
Will the Minister of Transport withhold the $36-million subsidies unless the B.C. government puts Canada first and invests in Canadian shipyards?
Des Newman
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honour the life of former Whitby mayor Des Newman, who passed away last week. On behalf of the people of Whitby, I want to pay tribute to a man whose love for his community was evident in everything he did. Des was a builder, not just of roads and rec centres but of relationships, trust and community spirit.
He helped bring people together, helped bring the town and the township of Whitby together, laid the foundation for the region of Durham and was instrumental in creating places that we treasure today: Iroquois Park Sports Centre, Lakeridge Health Whitby and the Station Gallery, just to name a few.
What I remember most is his warmth. When I was first elected, Des welcomed me like an old friend, generous with his stories, wise in his counsel and always encouraging. To his family and loved ones across Whitby and Durham region, I thank them for sharing him with us. Rest in peace, Des, my friend.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, homebuilding must nearly double over the next decade to restore affordability. Up to 4.8 million new homes are needed to close the supply gap that has led to higher home prices. Now, 480,000 new housing units are needed this year to close the supply gap.
The Liberals' own housing agency says Canada needs to double construction to restore affordability. Housing starts have continued to drop: Guelph is down 78%; London, 72%; Toronto, 58%; and Hamilton, 50%. These are alarming numbers, even after these five communities received $774 million from the housing accelerator fund.
Where is the accountability?
[Translation]
Summer in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles
Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the people watching at home and all my colleagues to come out to my beautiful riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles this summer.
Next week, on the eve of Quebec's national holiday, there will be lively celebrations in the cities of Boisbriand and Saint-Eustache, with activities for kids and families and a variety of concerts. On July 1, we will celebrate Canada Day in the city of Deux-Montagnes, again with family activities and concerts.
This summer, people can come out and enjoy themselves on the Mille Îles River at Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles Park, whenever they choose. If they want to visit any of the islands or have a picnic there, they can rent watercraft such as paddle boards, canoes and kayaks from any of the four cities in my riding.
Everyone is welcome.
I hope my colleagues have a relaxing summer, get some sun and come back fully rested in September.
[English]
Finance
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's four weeks in Parliament were filled with broken Liberal promises: a broken promise on spending, a broken promise on tax cuts, a broken promise on consultants, a broken promise on defence and a broken promise on being elbows up with the U.S.
Canada's fiscal watchdog confirmed a massive broken Liberal promise, the so-called tax cut. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the average Canadian will save just $90 this year, or less than $7.50 a month. That is barely enough to buy a cup of coffee. Low-income seniors will see even less, only $50 a year, or under $5 a month. That is not relief; that is an insult. It is one thing for Liberals to promise relief but another to deliver pennies while families struggle. Canadians are concerned, and rightly so. They deserve a government that keeps its word and respects Canadians' wallets.
Conservatives will deliver real tax relief for everyone, for good.
[Translation]
Quebec Games
Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous pride, and thanks to the initiative and vision of mayor Jean Lamarche, that Trois‑Rivières will be hosting the 59th Quebec Games this summer, from July 25 to August 2.
This event will bring together more than 3,500 young athletes, aged 12 to 17, from 19 regions of Quebec. It will feature 18 sports and celebrate excellence, passion and commitment. The success of these games can be primarily attributed to the incredible dedication of the volunteers. I would like to mention the chair, Martin Leblanc, Bernard Milette, and David Labecque and his team, who are working tirelessly to provide the athletes with the best possible environment to achieve excellence and personal growth.
I invite everyone to Trois‑Rivières this summer to cheer on these talented young athletes, share their energy and make these games something our community will never forget.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's four weeks in Parliament were filled with broken Liberal promises: broken promises on spending, broken promises on the tax cut, broken promises on defence and broken promises on elbows up with the United States. The Prime Minister promised $800 in savings, a savings bonanza. Instead, the average Canadian only gets $90 this year.
Did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians during the election, is he misleading them now or is it both?
Mr. Speaker, a tax cut for 22 million Canadians on July 1: check. GST off homes for first-time homebuyers: check. The government being fully funded and the supply bills being passed and off to the Senate: check. Defence spending at 2% of GDP: check. Today, and I invite the hon. member to join us, the bill to build Canada strong, the bill to build jobs in this country and create opportunity right across this land: check.
Mr. Speaker, if their math is like their promises, we are in serious trouble. They promised to put more money in Canadians' pockets. It is not $800 a year; it is seven dollars a month: broken. They promised to rein in government spending. We have $26 billion in consultants and $1,400 in taxes for every Canadian household: broken. The Prime Minister has promised to rein in inflation. Beef is up 34%, baby formula is up 9% and apples are up 18%: broken.
Was the Prime Minister misleading us in the campaign, is he misleading us now or is it both?
Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canadians are struggling and when we are fighting a trade war with one of our greatest allies traditionally, we have offered 22 million Canadians an income tax cut that is going to put more money in their pockets.
What did the Conservatives do? We are glad that for once they voted for a tax cut, which is fantastic. We know they have a history of complaining in this House about affordability and then voting against every single measure we put forward. At least finally they came to their senses and helped Canadians for once.
Ethics
Mr. Speaker, it has been over 100 days and the Prime Minister still has not set up an ethics screen to deal with his business interests. Just imagine a local school board trustee voting for a multi-million dollar contract, then going to his business partner to build a school without telling anyone he is going to profit from it. Canadians would be outraged, and they should be.
When will the Prime Minister show some basic ethics and stop treating public office like a private opportunity?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a record of achievement in 100 days that would make anyone around the world blush. We have reduced taxes. We are creating opportunity for Canadians. We have committed to passing a bill by July 1, which is on track to getting done.
The Prime Minister has proactively filed all disclosures required under the most stringent code of ethics that exists almost anywhere in the world. Of course, the Prime Minister will meet his requirements under that code and will keep delivering for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just voted to ban gas-powered vehicles, adding up to $20,000 to the cost of a new car. Families are already drowning in bills, and now he is making it even harder to get to work or drop off the kids. Is it just a coincidence that Brookfield stands to profit off this mandate?
When will the Prime Minister stop treating public money like his personal investment portfolio and finally be transparent about the deals he stands to benefit from?
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I rise to answer a question. I thank the hon. member for asking my first question.
I ran because I wanted to fight for jobs in this country and wanted to fight to protect the climate in this country for my children and my children's children. That is why we are building an electric vehicle supply chain and are driving record investment in the economy that is going to protect our workers not today, not tomorrow but seven generations ahead. I am thankful I am on this side, and I look to the other side to work with us.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this is the last day in the House before Parliament adjourns for the summer. Let us look at the disastrous record. We have had four weeks of broken promises by the Liberal government, including promises on spending, tax cuts, consultants, national defence and our relationship with the United States. Take tax cuts, for example. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying that Canadians will not save $800, but rather $90.
Why did the Liberal Party mislead Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear. This government is moving quickly. We have been able to do more in 100 days than many other previous governments have. This includes cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians and cutting the GST for first-time homebuyers.
If the opposition supports us, of course, we will also be able to pass a bill that is essential to supporting our workers and our industries that are currently at risk because of the tariff war.
I hope the opposition will be there to support us.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, with my limited experience in the House, what I have come to realize is that the Liberal government likes to play “mirror, mirror”.
Today, if the promise to save $800 is broken, it is because Canadians misunderstood. They should have understood that it was up to $800. Do members know what is simple to understand and not subject to interpretation? A budget.
Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility, let Canadians know the state of public finances and table his budget?
Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear: Canadians know that we are there for them in a tariff war. We are there for our steel and aluminum workers. We are there for our auto sector. We are there for all Canadians across the country because we know we have to play our part.
Some 22 million Canadians will benefit from a tax cut. We will also be there to build our country at a time when it is under attack.
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, the CSN is also speaking out against Bill C‑5 and how it will impose energy projects on Quebeckers. The CSN said, and I quote:
The use of closure to pass Bill C‑5 is an undemocratic tactic supported by the Conservative Party of Canada that will open the door to irreversible mistakes...
I will repeat word for word the question that is troubling the CSN: If Bill C‑5 is so good for workers, why not take the time to study it properly?
Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing many challenges, particularly in relation to the tariff war triggered by our neighbours to the south.
What Quebec workers and the FTQ are telling us is that we need to take action, that we need to quickly build projects of national significance that will not only create jobs, but will also enable Quebec to prosper today, tomorrow and for decades to come.
That is what we are doing with this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the CSN is adding its voice to the Assembly of First Nations. It even joins a few Liberal MPs and, no doubt, a few ministers who prefer to remain silent. They are the ones we are addressing as the vote approaches.
Bill C‑5 makes it possible to circumvent all environmental measures and suspend nearly all legislation by order in council. It is the most authoritarian bill since the Emergencies Act.
Will the ministers who disagree have the courage to oppose it before it is too late?
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be sitting on this side of the House to ensure that the reconciliation process will now be a “reconcili-action” process. We are working in partnership with the indigenous peoples here in Canada.
They will be engaged in a process that will be clear, serious and self-determined. This party is very open to ensuring that everyone has a place at the table, as only our government can do.
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, first it was the CSN, then first nations and then even a few Liberals, and now environmental groups are also speaking out against Bill C‑5.
Equiterre, Climate Action Network and Ecojustice: the list goes on. According to Greenpeace:
Bill C‑5 would...sidestep long-standing environmental protections, silence communities, and violate Indigenous rights in order to ram projects through to the benefit of multi-billion dollar corporations.
Everyone is telling the Liberals the same thing. We need to study Bill C‑5 as we normally would, not force it through on a time allocation. Will they listen?
Mr. Speaker, Canada is proud to be a leader in respecting environmental standards. We know we can undertake major projects, important projects, that create jobs and opportunities, without sacrificing our environmental values or our processes.
Clearly, we need to take action, economic action. We need to speed up the process and stop settling for processes that are too slow. We need to speed things up to make room for opportunities.
[English]
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's first four weeks have been filled with broken promises on spending, consultants, defence spending and relations with the U.S. Now the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed another broken promise, this time on tax cuts. He advises us that the average Canadian will save only $7.50 a month and low-income seniors will save even less, under five dollars a month, under the Liberal proposals.
Perhaps it is not a surprise the Prime Minister will not table a budget this spring, because so much of what he is saying now is so different from what he said during the election. I am curious: Did the Prime Minister deliberately mislead Canadians during the election, is he misleading them now or is it both?
Mr. Speaker, our government received a strong mandate from the Canadian people to build Canada strong.
What have we done? In just four weeks, we have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians, we have helped secure our borders, we are breaking down internal trade barriers, we are fast-tracking major nation-building projects and we have strengthened our ability to defend ourselves. That, to me, is strong leadership for a strong and independent Canada.
While Conservatives bash, we will build. We will continue to build with Canadians all across this great country. That is how we will make the best country in the world even better.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a broken record of broken promises, and the list keeps on growing. There are broken promises on spending, and we still do not have a budget plan. There are broken promises on consultants and on consulting with Canadians. There are broken promises to have his elbows up with the Americans. Instead, what the Prime Minister has lifted is his middle finger to Canadians on affordability, inflation and Liberal policies.
Canadians need real change from the Prime Minister, not pocket change in tax cuts, not broken promises and not false hopes. Will the Prime Minister table a real budget plan this spring or will he not?
Mr. Speaker, the member is a member of long standing, and I do not even think he believes the stuff he was handed to read.
The fact is that this is a transformational Prime Minister in a new government who will be presenting a budget this fall and who has already delivered a spending program that was passed by this House, has already delivered a tax cut for 22 million Canadians that will save families up to $840 a year and has taken off the GST on homes for first-time buyers. That is progress.
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, what the member just said is completely misleading to the Canadian public. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said this big tax cut is actually going to deliver $15 a month. That is not transformational. That is not going to build anything. The average Canadian can buy a couple of coffees at Starbucks for $15 a month, so it is all talk and no action, realistically, from the government.
The Prime Minister has broken four promises in four weeks of being the Prime Minister. That is not leadership. That is not transformational. That is misleading the Canadian public. Is “misleading the Canadian public” the new mantra for the “new government”?
Mr. Speaker, we are building the strongest economy in the G7. I am not sure where the member opposite has been. We are cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians. We are permanently cutting the consumer carbon tax. We are cutting taxes for first-time homebuyers.
The Conservatives, sadly, are still stuck in the past. It is time to get on board or get out of the way.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's first four weeks in Parliament were filled with broken promises: a broken promise on spending, a broken promise on the tax cut, a broken promise on consultants, a broken promise on defence and a broken promise on being elbows up with the U.S. The Parliamentary Budget Officer found the Liberals' tax cut will only save Canadians $90 this year and $190 next year. That is $15 per month or about four cans of tuna.
Did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians during this election, is he misleading them now or is it both?
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister announced a $9.3-billion investment in Canada's defence, which means we will achieve NATO's 2% target this fiscal year. This is not only an investment in our armed forces, but also an investment in good-paying jobs, in Canadian innovation and in economic growth. Our generational investment is strengthening Canada's role as a strong, reliable international trading partner while rebuilding and rearming our forces here at home. It is unfortunate the Conservatives voted against it.
Health
Mr. Speaker, according to recent reports, hundreds of American doctors wanting to work in our hospitals are, in their words, “stuck in bureaucratic hell”. Instead of serving Canadians, American doctors are blocked from working because they are trapped in a licensing logjam. Nearly seven million Canadians do not have a family doctor, yet government gatekeepers are blocking qualified doctors from working in Canada.
When will the Liberal health minister introduce our Conservative blue seal program to recognize the credentials of international doctors so Canadians can get the care they need?
Mr. Speaker, our colleague evidently read the article that was on the front page of National Newswatch yesterday, but he did not read it closely. What he would have seen if he had is that the issue is squarely in the provincial jurisdiction. We know there are American doctors trying to come to Canada, who are leaving the United States. Of course our health care system is in need of more doctors, but the issue is tangled in bureaucracy in British Columbia.
If the member wants to bring matters to the House of Commons, that is fine; it is a very good issue to raise, but the issue is misplaced. It is an issue of provincial jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an officer of the House of Commons and our financial watchdog, has confirmed another broken Liberal promise, this one having to do with their so-called tax cut. During the election, the Prime Minister promised people $850, but it turns out that the average Canadian will save only $90 this year. For seniors, it is $4 a month.
My question is very simple. Did the Prime Minister lie during the campaign? Is he lying now? Is it both at the same time?
Before I recognize the government House leader, I want to point out that the word the member used causes a commotion when it is used in the House. I would therefore ask the member to withdraw that word.
Mr. Speaker, the facts are very simple. For everyone who pays income tax, 22 million Canadians, the tax rate is going down from 15% to 14%. This will save Canadian families up to $840. Those who pay income tax can save up to $840. We made that promise and we kept it—
Finance
Mr. Speaker, it still seems to me that he is calling the Parliamentary Budget Officer a liar, but facts are facts. This Prime Minister's first few weeks in Parliament have been full of broken promises, particularly when it comes to spending, taxes, outside consultants, defence and even our relationship with the United States. Meanwhile, Canadians are paying 14% more for rice, 18% more for apples and 34% more for beef.
Will the Prime Minister finally table the budget that everyone is waiting for, one that will truly cut taxes and reverse this government's inflationary policies?
Mr. Speaker, again, 22 million Canadians, that is everyone who pays income tax, will notice that less income tax is being deducted from their paycheques as of July 1. That is a nice Canada Day gift. My colleague talks about affordability, but she opposed child care spaces, the Canada child benefit and assistance for dental care. She should focus on affordability and support us.
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 perfectly sums up the new Liberal Prime Minister's approach. He wants to force pipelines on Quebec, he wants to impose projects by order in council without going through Parliament and he wants to be able to bypass pretty much all laws, also by order in council, to help developers. He wants to do all this by imposing closure, without debate or witnesses, with the support of the Conservatives.
Meanwhile, the 44 Liberal members from Quebec have been trying to fade into the woodwork. Do they realize that they did not vote the right way?
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for my colleague to remember that we are in the midst of a tariff war and that this is an urgent matter. The member need only talk to Quebec aluminum workers. If he dares, he can also talk to people in the auto and steel industries in Ontario. In short, we need to act quickly. We need to work together to pass the bill to build big infrastructure projects. If the member is still not convinced, then he should talk to Quebec Premier François Legault, who supports the bill.
Mr. Speaker, in four short weeks, the Liberals have shown us their true face. It is Pierre Poilievre's face in a red tie. Many Quebeckers voted Liberal to be protected from the Conservatives, and yet we are faced with a government that wants to govern by decree and impose pipelines with Bill C‑5. This government stole $814 million from Quebeckers to buy votes from Canadians. All of that was done in four weeks.
That is the Liberals' true face. Do they realize that to many Quebeckers, they are two-faced?
Mr. Speaker, I think that by constantly exaggerating, the members from the Bloc Québécois are going to miss Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. The fact remains that this is a matter of urgency. We must urgently respond to the trade war started by our neighbours to the south. We must urgently respond to the Government of Quebec and other actors, including the unions and investors, to reduce the gap between Quebec and Canada and create jobs and opportunities.
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, a nurse was strangled unconscious, Vancouver police officers were set on fire as they arrested a repeat offender, a Victoria paramedic was violently assaulted while attending an overdose call, a firefighter was attacked with a machete while resuscitating an overdose victim, and a Manitoba nurse was stabbed with a needle. Our first responders and health care workers are targeted, attacked and face horrific abuse on a daily basis, and they are calling for bail reform.
When will the Prime Minister end his failed drug policies and soft-on-crime laws and protect our frontline heroes?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked about this before. The fact is that fentanyl has torn through our communities and ripped through our families. It is an incredibly serious issue, and I empathize with the people who have been lost.
The fact is, we take this incredibly seriously. We are hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers and hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers to go after the bad guys and put them away.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals failed first responders and health care workers, for 10 years, who are calling for bail reform. For 10 years, the Liberals have put criminals' rights before victims. Violent crime has surged 50% since 2015. The Liberals' reckless drug policies have turned our hospitals and our communities into war zones.
Nurses and other health care workers face horrific abuse every single shift, and first responders are assaulted and beaten while responding to calls for help. Violence is not part of their job description, and the responsibility lies squarely at the foot of the Prime Minister. He told Canadians he had a plan—
Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague, and Canadians deserve to feel safe in their own communities, which is why we have committed to cracking down on repeat, violent offenders even further, in our platform. We will strengthen the Criminal Code and move aggressively to protect victims by making bail laws stricter for violent and organized crime, home invasion, car theft and human trafficking. We were given a strong mandate from Canadians to keep our communities safe, and that is exactly what we will do.
Mr. Speaker, last week alone, the Regina Police Service responded to 54 suspected overdoses, including four fatalities. According to multiple news reports, fentanyl is suspected in most if not all of these cases. The crisis has gotten so bad that the provincial Ministry of Health has issued an overdose alert for Regina.
When will the Liberals finally crack down on organized crime and mass fentanyl production labs so we can finally get fentanyl off our streets?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, fentanyl is ravaging our communities and tearing families apart. That is a well-known fact. Bill C‑2 will step up the fight against fentanyl trafficking through important measures such as tighter controls on the chemical precursors used to manufacture fentanyl and enhanced powers for law enforcement to intercept and search shipments suspected of containing illegal drugs. We have also designated drug cartels as terrorist organizations. We will always be there to protect Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, recently in my riding, friends and family of Lucas Lethbridge came together in memory of his tragic death due to overdose. I, for one, have lost more friends from addiction than from any other cause.
My question today comes directly from Lucas' father: Why does a fentanyl dealer selling cocaine secretly laced with fentanyl get to continue killing vulnerable Canadians in our communities rather than getting locked up for life?
Mr. Speaker, first I want to convey my condolences to the hon. member for the people lost in his community.
As I mentioned earlier, the fact is that the global rise of fentanyl has ripped through our communities and our families, and it is completely unacceptable. We have listed seven cartels as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. To combat it, we are hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA officers to go after the bad guys and put them away.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Attorney General stated that the Liberals will bring forward multiple changes to their catch-and-release laws in the fall, effectively admitting that Bill C-75 is a failure, yet the same day, the secretary of state for combatting crime blamed the provinces for releasing violent repeat offenders.
Two years ago, my own daughter watched as her boyfriend, Johnny, was murdered in Victoria, stabbed to death by a violent repeat offender who was out on bail for attempted murder not three weeks earlier.
When will the Liberals protect Canadians like Johnny, actually take action and cancel failed Bill C-75?
Mr. Speaker, I feel for the member's opposite situation.
There are mandatory minimums when it comes to certain offences committed with firearms relating to some crimes. There is a maximum amount for a sentence for repeat offenders: seven years.
We take these issues very seriously, and we will be working towards reforms in the coming months.
Steel and Aluminum Industry
Mr. Speaker, Canadian steel and aluminum are the best in the world, and our workers in those vital industries are second to none. However, we know that these vital sectors are facing very serious threats as a result of unjustified and illegal American tariffs.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue update the House on how the government is supporting our world-class steel and aluminum producers during these turbulent times?
Mr. Speaker, Canadian steel and aluminum are going to help build the strongest economy in the G7. While we continue to aim for a negotiated agreement with the United States, we are taking strong action to respond to the illegal and unjustified American tariffs to protect the integrity of our sectors.
Yesterday we announced targeted measures, including adjusted countertariffs, new tariff rate quotas and a $10-billion large-enterprise tariff loan facility. These measures will help our steel and aluminum—
Housing
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's own housing agency has given up on the concept of housing affordability. It reported that Canada needs to build 480,000 homes a year to restore affordability, something TD Bank says is impossible. Earlier this week, the latest housing minister boasted that he was on pace for 280,000 starts this year, and he plans for 500,000 a year.
In the GTA and the Lower Mainland, the bulk of our housing market starts have gone off a cliff, so the question is simple: If we are to take the minister at his word, where are the other 200,000 units coming from?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, contrary to everything we hear from the other side of the House, we are doing our jobs.
There is an action plan, and affordability is central to the mandate of “build Canada homes”. We will build more affordable and social housing to support low- and middle-income families. We have the most ambitious plan in decades. We are committed to building twice as many homes. We will do so using Canadian innovation, Canadian labour and Canadian lumber, steel and aluminum.
That is how to build the Canada of tomorrow.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it sounds like more bureaucracy, and I will give an example of Ottawa bureaucracy.
Here in the city of Ottawa, the federal government closed its training centre. Nine years later, it finally sold that training centre to its own federal housing developer at market price. Then it took the federal developer five years and 79 different reports at the city planning department to deal with the neighbours and the local Liberal MP, who tried to block the redevelopment. Construction finally started. It took 16 years for the federal government to turn its land, using its developer, into 1,100 desperately needed homes.
Why does the government think that more bureaucracy is the solution?
Mr. Speaker, our new government is committed to ensuring that federal procurement is conducted in an open, fair and transparent manner.
When it comes to the situation in question, I would point to the investment that our government made most recently through the housing accelerator fund here in the city of Ottawa. This is our commitment to work with municipalities to ensure that we get the housing built that we need.
Mr. Speaker, under the government's watch, the housing crisis has reached an unprecedented precipice, and no number of recycled ministers will hide the fact that the Liberal government is responsible. The CMHC's own numbers have declared the death of housing affordability across this nation, and the government's solution was to appoint a minister who as mayor of Vancouver was responsible for one of the worst housing and affordability epidemics we have ever seen.
Will they simply stop talking about the housing crisis that exploded under their watch and actually do something about it?
Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that there is a housing crisis. This is why the government is getting back into the business of building. This is why we will power innovation with modular and prefabricated homes. We will do it by reducing red tape, increasing efficiency and streamlining operations. We will do it at a very fast speed. This is what we promised Canadians and this is what we will deliver.
Mr. Speaker, the best time for action was 10 years ago.
Given the fact that a government agency said Canada needs to double down on construction to restore affordability, will the government get out of the way and recognize that building bureaucracy does not build homes?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague to read the Liberal platform. We have made major commitments with respect to transforming government operations. We got to work as soon as we returned.
The “build Canada homes” initiative will help make it easier to get housing built faster. That is what Canadians need now.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in communities across the North Okanagan, families are being pushed out of the housing market. Young people cannot afford to buy and seniors are being forced out of the communities that they themselves built. Meanwhile, the Liberal government still has no budget, no plan, no urgency.
While young families and seniors are begging for the Liberals to get housing built, the Prime Minister, much like the last one, is more focused on political optics than shovels in the ground. When will the Liberal government stop dragging its feet, deliver a budget and finally take responsibility for the housing crisis it helped create?
Mr. Speaker, when we came to office, the first thing we did was take the GST off new homes for first-time homebuyers. This government has proposed a series of measures, beginning with the national housing strategy back in 2018. The member was not here, but the Conservatives have opposed every single one of these measures. Whether it is affordable housing or social housing, every single housing initiative put forward by this government and every single plan that my hon. colleague described, they are against. Where is their housing plan?
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, Canadians are being forced to skip meals just to pay the rent. A new report from Royal LePage shows that 39% of Ontario renters are cutting back on food and essentials just to stay housed. Even the CMHC is waving the white flag, admitting its own housing targets are not possible under the Liberal government. This is what failure looks like: unaffordable housing, stalled construction and Canadians falling further behind.
With alarm bells ringing all over the place, when will the Liberals finally admit that their housing plan isn't working?
Mr. Speaker, when we exploit people's hardship and vulnerability for political gain, when we base our political hopes on the failure of the economy and when we dismiss the potential of Canadian innovation to solve the challenges that we face, as Conservatives do every day in this House, we are not just betting against our government; we are betting against Canadians.
On this side of the House, we will bet on Canadians every single day. Why? It is because we know they will overcome the greatest challenges we face.
Mr. Speaker, years of poor forest management contributed to fires that devastated a third of the homes in Jasper last year. Parks Canada red tape, controlled by the Liberal government, is delaying the construction of new homes. Its process has just exacerbated the housing crisis in the region. Despite the Liberal government allocating $160 million, its solution seems to be treating Jasperites like inmates and housing them in ATCO trailers, as in a remote work camp.
Is the Liberal solution to housing shortages to put people in sea cans for storage?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are now really reaching. They are accusing the government of not living up to its responsibilities for conservation or responsibilities to national parks in this country. This government has prided itself on coming to the aid of communities, whether it be with housing assistance or any other kind of assistance. We have had a devastating wildfire season, provoked in no small part due to the climate change we are experiencing.
This government will continue to respond to Canadians' needs for housing and for good management.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada has now documented the fact that housing prices in the Chaudière-Appalaches region have skyrocketed by 46% since 2021. That is insane.
I asked the housing minister about his department's biggest program. He could not even answer me. He does not even know about it. That is both disappointing and concerning.
I am new here, but does the housing minister actually deal with housing?
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague noted earlier, we have a national housing strategy that is second to none. We will double the construction of new homes.
We concluded an historic agreement with Quebec on the housing accelerator fund. We have invested $900 million. Quebec has also invested $900 million. Real housing units are being built. People are actually living in them now.
We are getting things going, we have already started and we will keep going. As I said, we are using Canadian innovation, Canadian lumber and Canadian workers. We have a plan.
Mr. Speaker, more of the empty replies that we keep hearing. I have been here for four weeks. People elected us to ask the Liberals questions and to make them accountable to the people of Beauce. The Liberals are not answering us. They are thumbing their noses at us. It is disrespectful.
We are trying to be polite, rigorous, respectful. We always get the same old song from them, the same refrain. It is disappointing. The price of housing keeps rising. Building more homes is the Minister of Housing's job.
Let me ask a simple question. Can the housing minister do his job or not?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his highly pertinent questions. Our goal is to be able to work with him, through Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, for instance, so that even businesses in the Beauce region that manufacture prefabricated homes can have a hand in achieving the housing priorities of the minister and the government. I look forward to working with him. We need to create jobs, and we need to build homes.
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Speaker, our national aerospace industry is a great example of Canadian entrepreneurship. With the unjustified tariffs creating so much uncertainty for our businesses, it is more important than ever to support this sector.
Could the minister of industry, science and innovation tell us about her visit to the international air and space show at Le Bourget, where she represented Canada's aerospace industry?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Prescott—Russell—Cumberland for her excellent question and her outstanding work.
Canada has a strong aerospace sector, but we need to go even further. We need to do more to help the industry. We got some good news at the Le Bourget air show. A Polish company, LOT Polish Airlines, placed an order for 40 Airbus A220 aircraft, with the option of purchasing 44 more. They will be built in Mirabel, Quebec. France is also purchasing some GlobalEye aircraft from Bombardier.
We will create jobs. We will strengthen our aerospace industry.
[English]
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal anti-energy policies that drive out investment and plunge business confidence down, even the Liberal House leader has admitted on TV that the government cannot get anything built, despite years of defending Trudeau's actions. Canadians want to see projects growing and energy flowing, but until destructive Liberal laws like Bill C-69 are gone, it is just more empty promises.
If the Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe anything he says, then he will fully repeal anti-energy laws and get pipelines built.
Mr. Speaker, we will present the members opposite an opportunity to build. We will present the one Canadian economy bill. We will rapidly advance projects of national interest and build one economy, not 13. The bill will grow the economy and make Canada the strongest economy in the G7. We hope they will join us in voting for it.
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers work hard to feed the world, but they are taking losses from trade barriers imposed by China. Saskatchewan normally exports close to $1 billion in peas to them, but thanks to action by the Liberal Prime Minister, our exports are dropping. Saskatchewan farmers have already lost out on half of their pea exports to China, and now there is a 100% tariff on the rest.
The Prime Minister promised to be different from Justin Trudeau on trade, so why is he still doing nothing to help our farmers out?
Mr. Speaker, we have an immense responsibility to address these challenges. We are in a triangular trade war with two other countries. We are doing everything possible to keep the lines of communication open, and we will continue to do that.
We are investing in farmers. We are investing in ag stability. We are investing in ag marketing. We are continuing to do everything we can.
I had the opportunity to visit the prairie provinces last weekend to speak first-hand to farmers. We have some of the best farmers in the world on the cutting edge of technology.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Iranian regime is collapsing and its thugs are already eyeing Canada. After 10 years of weak Liberal national security laws, this country has become a safe haven for IRGC terrorists. Hundreds live here. They operate here, they fundraise here, they intimidate Canadians here and they do it all without consequence.
I will ask the minister this: How many more terrorists have to come to Canada before the Liberals introduce the foreign registry they put into law last year?
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is National Indigenous Peoples Day. Every June 21, Canadians take the time to reflect on our past. We also celebrate the significant contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis people from coast to coast to coast.
After generations of pain and suffering, our country has chosen to deliberately walk the path of reconciliation. We must do this together.
Can the Minister of Indigenous Services reflect on the importance of National Indigenous Peoples Day here in Canada and across Turtle Island?
Mr. Speaker, National Indigenous Peoples Day is a time for us to celebrate first nations people, and Métis, Inuit and indigenous communities, each with their own culture, identity and languages.
In addition, I am honoured to be the first indigenous minister leading Indigenous Services to serve indigenous people in this community, somebody who understands their reality and can speak with them directly one on one with respect for their culture and identity.
Health
Mr. Speaker, an alarming report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal shows that one in three Canadian children will be overweight or obese on their 18th birthday. This is not a cosmetic concern. Children who are obese on their 18th birthday are tragically three times less likely to live to see their 30th. Obviously, no child chooses to have this disease. Every case is a social and environmental failure.
Does the Liberal government have any plan at all to remediate these policy failures for our children, in this Parliament?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and I both sit on the health committee, and I look forward to working with him on this very important issue.
The health and safety of Canadians is the top priority for this new government. We will put in every measure possible. We will work with provinces and territories to make sure we have support for children with diabetes. I look forward to working with the member opposite on this very important issue.
Democratic Institutions
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats want to build our economy and create family-sustaining jobs, but it must be done right. Today, the Liberals and the Conservatives are ramming Bill C-5 through Parliament with shockingly little debate or public input. This bill creates Henry VIII powers, letting the Prime Minister override laws by decree. It guts environmental protections, undermines workers and threatens indigenous rights. This bill will end up in court.
Why is the government violating democratic values and risking critical economic projects with tactics from Donald Trump's playbook?
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of support in the country for this brilliant piece of legislation, which would create one economy, not 13, and would move us toward creating great national projects that will create jobs.
I know that the member will stand with me and with the men and women in Canada's labour movement, who have stood up, day after day after day after day, to support this legislation, to say that it will create jobs, that it will create opportunity for the skilled trades, that it will create a future for them and their children.
Will he stand with those unions? Will he stand for—
The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
[Translation]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, today is World Refugee Day. That is the sad reality of 43 million people around the world.
These people deserve our solidarity, but the Liberal government is moving in the opposite direction by proposing Trump-style militarization and border control. The Liberal rhetoric is dangerous.
The NDP is clear: Anyone who shows up at our border seeking safety must be taken in and heard with respect and compassion.
The Prime Minister was elected as the anti-Trump, so why is he copying Trump's worst ideas and attacking refugees' right to seek asylum?
Mr. Speaker, the strong borders act will crack down on organized crime, while making communities safer and providing the necessary guarantees to people who come to our borders and who are entitled to have their rights respected.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Government Transformation and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health erroneously referred to something called a “new government” and—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Nuclear Energy
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems”, done at Paris on January 29.
Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsperson
Departmental Results Reports 2023-24
[Translation]
Innovation, Science and Industry
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and in accordance with the policy on tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference of the International Telecommunication Union”, done at Dubai on December 15, 2023.
[English]
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Amendment to Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade”, adopted at Geneva between May 1 and May 12, 2023.
Export Development Canada
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The first report is entitled “The Persian Gulf War Was a War”. The second report is entitled “Reforming Transition from Military to Civilian Life”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of those two reports.
[English]
Government Operations and Estimates
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, known as the mighty OGGO.
The first is a report entitled “Canada's Postal Service: A Lifeline for Rural and Remote Communities”, and the second is a report entitled “Renewal of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's Mandate”, where the committee recommends the renewal of the mandate for the PBO and also recognizes his service to Canada.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the first report.
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising for what will be a very busy ethics committee, I suspect, in the future.
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The first report is entitled “Federal Government's Use of Technological Tools Capable of Extracting Personal Data from Mobile Devices and Computers”, and the second is regarding the report “Oversight of Social Media Platforms: Ensuring Privacy and Safety Online”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.
Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following four reports of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities: the second report, entitled “The Erie Lake Connector: A Project in the Best Interest of the Public?”; the third report, entitled “Towards Accessible Air Transportation in Canada”; the fourth report, entitled “The Role of McKinsey & Company in the Creation and the Beginnings of the Canada Infrastructure Bank”; and the fifth report, entitled “Issues and Opportunities: High Frequency Rail in the Toronto to Quebec City Corridor”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these reports.
Criminal Code
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).
She said: Mr. Speaker, imagine that someone's son or daughter has been battling depression for some time after losing their job or maybe due to a broken relationship. Imagine they feel a loss so deep that they are convinced the world would be better off without them. Now imagine this. Starting in March 2027, under Canadian law, they could walk into a doctor's office and ask them to end their life. Under our law, the system could legally do just that. Our society could end a person's life for solely a mental health challenge.
That is not a future scenario; it is the law right now waiting to take effect. The Liberal government has already had to delay this law twice. Why? It is because medical experts and legal scholars have raised the alarm again and again, saying that it is impossible to implement safely. Clinical experts have warned that there is no evidence-based way to determine if someone with a mental illness would get better. Most do. Still, the government is moving forward. The message it is sending is that struggling Canadians, trauma survivors and those battling depression—
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be giving a speech on the subject matter of the bill she is introducing. The point of this is to introduce the bill and give a quick summary of it. She has not even mentioned the bill yet or what is in it.
I thank the member for the intervention. We do allow a brief summary and explanation of the bill. The member is well within her time at this point.
The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City may carry on from where she left off.
Mr. Speaker, the message the government is sending is that struggling Canadians, trauma survivors and those battling depression, schizophrenia or PTSD are being told that death is a solution we are now willing to offer in response to a life of suffering, often compounded by harm this very society has caused them. That is not health care. That is not compassion. It is abandonment. Mental illness is treatable, and recovery is possible, but only if we show up and help.
Canadians are watching. They need us to stand up for life, dignity and hope.
It is my honour and privilege to rise today and introduce an act to amend the Criminal Code on medical assistance in dying.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That in relation to the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees & Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors Annual Conference, five members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Regina, Saskatchewan, from September 7 to 10, 2025, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.
I will note as well that this motion was passed unanimously this week at committee.
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today with respect to a petition. This petition is brought to us by petitioners as all Canadians face an inflation crisis. These particular petitioners are petitioning on behalf of seniors, who are facing incredibly high costs, often with fixed income. They are asking for relief, particularly for those who are survivors, or widows or widowers, from the CPP benefit and asking for 100% of the survivor benefit.
Questions on the Order Paper
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
One Canadian Economy Act
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, as reported with amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, I have been in the House for about nine years now, and I have to say, Bill C‑5 is the worst bill I have ever worked on. It is the worst bill I have ever seen make its way through the House. These are strong words, but it is the truth.
The government's approach reveals a thoroughly autocratic management style. Despite everything, we managed to get rid of a few irritants, a few items that were blatantly unacceptable, although many others remain. In fact, we had to twist the government's arm to get last-minute gains like having the Indian Act and the Official Languages Act removed from the list of acts that could be sidestepped under the major projects bill.
It should not be a herculean task to prevent the government from bypassing every law on the books to please the Liberal Party's pals. Some laws should be untouchable. Francophone rights should not even be up for discussion; nor should indigenous rights. We won those small victories because we got a little last-minute support on a few things from the Conservative Party.
We also managed to achieve a little more transparency around the use and application of this act thanks to an oversight committee similar to the one we have for emergency measures. We also made sure that the special powers given to ministers cannot be used when Parliament is dissolved or the House is adjourned. These are small victories, but they do not change the substance of the bill.
We also proposed other amendments that sought to improve environmental oversight, but they were rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition, as were our amendments aimed at giving Quebec the right to say no to projects that Ottawa wants to fast-track. We proposed amendments to force the bill and the government to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces and territories, but those amendments were also rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition.
We introduced an amendment to stop certain projects from being fast-tracked and to give the House the power to do that. This amendment would have allowed the House to draw attention to the fact that the government was going too far when it was not happy with these fast-tracked projects. Once again, our amendment was rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition. We wanted to completely eliminate the power to circumvent laws by order in council for major projects. That was also challenged and rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition.
As we know, normally, the larger the project, the greater its impact and the more social dialogue it requires. However, in this case, we are seeing the opposite: The larger the project, the more political games there will be. The larger the project, the more people will have to suffer the consequences of something that they were not even consulted about.
This opens the door to all sorts of biased applications, all sorts of arbitrary decisions and greater cronyism. One would think we are living in a banana republic. Usually, in modern democracies, it is the opposite. We have the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch, which are all independent from one another. However, what we are seeing here is the executive branch giving itself the power to bypass the legislative branch. That is unfortunate and it is really problematic to see the government being given the power to choose projects, the power to choose what projects should be designated as being in the national interest, the power to choose the conditions that will apply to projects, and the power to circumvent laws that this Parliament passed, all by order in council. The government is even being given the power to issue an order changing the project conditions midstream, if the developers do not like them.
The bill that is before us is really serious, and I do not understand why members of the House do not realize that. Normally, checks and balances exist in a society for good reason: to prevent the abuse of power. What we are seeing on the other side of the House is a government that wants to give itself all the power and govern like our neighbours south of the border. We are speaking out against that. I thought that this was something that we wanted to do away with in the last election, but this is what we are seeing the government do today.
We should not trust a government that not only wants to govern by order in council, but also wants to govern in secret, with no accountability.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, the degree to which the Bloc does not support Bill C-5. Every region of the country will benefit from it. The Bloc members seem to be concerned about the process, when we know it is not just the Liberals; we have Conservatives and Liberals who have recognized the theme of the national election that was held on April 28. It was universally accepted in terms of developing and promoting one Canadian economy, because it helps the people of Quebec. We can think in terms of hydro in the province of Quebec.
Why is the Bloc putting their separatist attitudes above the interests of the people of Quebec when, even in the most recent mandate, April 28, just weeks ago, we got that very strong message? The Bloc members are ignoring the people of Quebec. I say shame on them.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary's only argument against what I said is that I am a separatist, that means he is all out of arguments.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member is correct that the bill does provide the government with discretion to approve projects. I guess where the Conservatives and the Bloc separate is the fact that the Bloc members voted for Bill C-69. They supported the industrial carbon tax. This is the very reason Bill C-5 is necessary.
Will the member vote with Conservatives to eliminate Bill C-69?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my Conservative colleague is asking that question, because we were able to mitigate the most extreme aspects of the bill, even though it remains every bit as problematic and troublesome.
It is not quite as bad as it was, but what really disappointed me is that some of the amendments we proposed would have had an environmental impact and would have provided greater protection for biodiversity. Unfortunately, every time we mentioned the environment or biodiversity, the Conservatives were not on our side.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member from the Bloc was uncomfortable with the question, but it does not necessarily justify the answer he provided, because the people of Quebec, much like the people of Canada, see the merit of this particular piece of legislation. We have a vast majority of members of Parliament who see the value, who want to see Bill C-5 pass, yet if it were up to the Bloc, this legislation would never pass. They would like to postpone it indefinitely.
The question that the people of Quebec and Canada have for the Bloc members is, why does the Bloc disagree with building one stronger, healthier Canada, with the potential of billions of dollars that would be saved for everyone?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, given how long the parliamentary secretary has been here, he should have been rewarded with a ministerial position for his good service to the Liberal Party.
Essentially, he is saying that a majority of the population supports the bill. He even claims that a majority of Quebeckers support the bill, but I have not seen any figures to back that up, and I know very well that he does not have any. The government did not want to listen to the people, poll them or give them time to form an opinion because the Liberals imposed time allocation on the study of the bill, even in committee.
The only majority the member is talking about is the parliamentary majority, and that is not necessarily the majority of the population, because the Liberals are muzzling Parliament.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for our work together in trying to improve Bill C-5 as best we could. I am glad we won the fight to ensure there would be some limits on the cabinet in Bill C-5 to prevent it from exempting laws such as the Access to Information Act, the Lobbying Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Criminal Code, the Investment Canada Act, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Trade Unions Act, the Explosives Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Indian Act, the Governor General's Act and the Official Languages Act. That is an issue on which we worked co-operatively to help the Liberals improve the bill.
Maybe the member wants to comment on why in the heck they would ever try to sidestep all those laws in the first place.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very interesting. Indeed, we managed to get rid of a whole bunch of extreme powers that this government wanted to give itself.
Unfortunately, we had to do our work hastily on the back of a napkin in five minutes. We were adding acts in a rush, but we were unable to do a comprehensive review, which means that there are likely many other laws that are not in this bill that can still be circumvented.
This country has been around for more than 150 years. Many laws have been voted on, but, unfortunately, a list of 10 or 15 laws is not enough to ensure that this bill will have the necessary framework and limitations.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this debate on the one Canadian economy act.
We are here with this bill on these timelines because the government was given a mandate to unite, protect and build Canada. I do not think we expected to be in this place with this bill, but necessity is the mother of invention, and this crisis has created an opportunity for us to find and build the new solidarity we need to build Canada in the coming years. We did not expect to be in this place with this bill because, for centuries, generations of Canadians, immigrants to and from Canada, generations of Canadian leaders, had managed to balance our north-south relationship with the United States and the east-west relationship within Canada. The complex set of relationships between different indigenous peoples on this continent and between indigenous peoples and settlers continues to define both sets of relationships, but both of these east-west and north-south ties were fundamental to the growth of Canada.
The east-west relationship is the one that we generally learned in history class and that we continue to live and work on in the House. On this side of the House, with members from every province and two of three territories, it is one we take incredibly seriously. We know how that east-west relationship evolved. It was with the expansion of the country, first west and then north and then back east. There was the building of infrastructure, including railways, highways, waterways, and energy and electricity connections. There were the debates that arose from our different regional perspectives on those projects, including the building of businesses and family ties, as well as the many constitutional battles that brought some of us here, or scarred us, which were often focused on Quebec or the rest of Canada's relationship with it, but it is one on which we have all engaged. There are, again, the injustices that have been or are being done with respect to indigenous peoples, and they are part of the east-west relationship that we continue to live.
To build Canada from east to west took imagination, commitment and conviction, and this new government, this 45th Parliament, along with our constituents, are all beneficiaries of that hard work to build the country from east to west. The north-south ties are not always the daily concern of the House or of Canadian leaders, but it is a set of ties that so many of us live with every day, and we cannot understand the monumental east-west shifts without having the context of our north-south relationship, because the north-south ties predate the creation of the Dominion of Canada, too. There is the war of independence and the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists, the War of 1812, the threat of the Fenian raids and the American Civil War.
We have had to manage the north-south relationship since July 1, 1867, and occasionally we have taken great strides, whether it was with the Auto Pact, the acid rain treaty, the free trade agreements or our participation in the Afghanistan mission. While our predecessors in these seats debated these issues, Canadians continued to build north-south ties, including businesses, conferences, holidays, research partnerships, shopping and, most importantly, the family ties in immigration that define our two nations. These are among the Maritimes, Quebec and New England, the Canadian prairie provinces, and the U.S. Midwest and west. They are among Niagara and Buffalo, Windsor and Detroit, Waterloo and Silicon Valley, Tsawwassen, B.C. and Point Roberts, as well as Washington, and the Mohawk nation of Akwesasne. These are all north-south connections that define the Canadian-U.S. relationship.
The north-south relationship was captured so well by President John F. Kennedy in his address to this chamber 64 years ago when he said, and I think some of us have heard these words before, “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies.” Whenever we had a difficulty with the north-south relationship, we could generally make progress on it, not necessarily solving it, but continuing to work on it. All the time the north-south relationship developed, our economy, along with our web of connections, which each of us and our constituents had with our neighbours to the south, also grew.
From time to time, we would hear from people in Canada that not all was well with the north-south relationship for Canadian artists and creators, our softwood lumber industry, refugees and Canadian innovators. However, again, generally, this country has succeeded. Indeed, this country exists and has survived because we were able to manage both our east-west relationships and our north-south relationships and not let one be destroyed by the other. For decades and centuries, we have been able to keep these two sets of relationships balanced. As long as those basic collective benefits of the north-south relationship of economic and security were there, we had the luxury of focusing our conflict on the east-west relationship here, but that has changed, and now we have to change.
President Kennedy's description of our north-south relationship no longer holds, at least not all of it, anyway. Geography continues to make us neighbours, now both physically and digitally. History continues to make us friends, even if some of those individual friendships or family connections have been tested, but the new U.S. administration is breaking our economic partnership vocally and explicitly. It is threatening our sovereignty vocally and explicitly.
This means that we need to find new allies. We have a necessity to find new allies. Our government is doing this every day, and we are showing leadership on this through our G7 presidency, but we need to find and build new allies, new economies and new ties in the place we should have been looking to all along, which is at home. No matter how strong the family relationships are across the border, no matter how close the border is or how closely tied our economies continue to be, we have to look east-west for our economy, our security and our sovereignty.
That means the one Canadian economy act. As the House knows, the one Canadian economy act is in two sections. There are two new proposed pieces of legislation: the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.
The free trade and labour mobility in Canada act would build those east-west ties that we all neglected, and here are some examples: a farmer in Saskatchewan grows organic produce and wants to sell it in Alberta, but the certification rules just do not line up; a certified welder in Nova Scotia is offered a short-term job in a federally regulated project in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they have to reapply for recognition; or a tech firm in Ontario builds an energy-efficient appliance that meets the highest standards, but when they market it in B.C., they are told to go through another process.
The building Canada act is a strong bill, improved by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, with an engaged Parliament, which we are engaging with today, with protections both in the bill and in the Constitution, to make sure we do nation building more quickly and do it right, in the way the Minister of Indigenous Services said so well in the House earlier today. However, as much as the individual provisions of the bill are important, it is the imagination and the possibility that it has already unleashed that I am looking forward to.
Provincial premiers are working together and working with us to propose new projects to build. Business and labour leaders are standing up and standing together to build. They include leaders such as Finn Johnson of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, who said, “These nation-building projects are going to be essential to Canada's growth in the short and long-term—and UBC members will be there to build them”. There are also leaders such as Goldy Hyder of the Business Council of Canada, who said that Bill C-5 can enable us to leap out of the starting block allowing Canada to finish first in the global race for trade. There is also the Hon. Lisa Raitt, who used to sit in the chamber with us, from Coalition for a Better Future. She said that she believes Bill C-5 can play a role in strengthening Canada's long-term economic foundations. These are some of the leaders who are inspired by what the bill proposes and the mandate that we had in this election to be bold and ambitious and build the Canadian economy.
Canadians at large, including Canadians in my riding, are taking the broader perspective. They know how important the north-south relationship is, and they continue to guard and cherish those relationships and friendships, as well as the business ties and academic ties, but they know that what we took for granted in that relationship is at risk. They know that John F. Kennedy's formulation of the allyship, and the economic and security benefits we have from that relationship, are at risk. They are pleading with us to pass the bill to get going on these major nation-building projects from coast to coast, and for their elected leaders, business leaders and union leaders to put capital and their shoulders into this work. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr. Speaker, especially with respect to interprovincial trade, I think we all agree that we need more of it, particularly in the context of the deteriorating relationship with our neighbour to the south. We agree on that, but the vast majority of interprovincial trade barriers will still remain after the passage of the bill.
Do you think that things such as providing financial incentives to the provinces and a program such as the proposed blue seal program, which would allow nurses or doctors to work from coast to coast, would be positive?
Order. The hon. member for Northumberland—Clarke knows that questions have to be addressed through the Chair.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.
Mr. Speaker, I worked in provincial government for many years and my interpretation of both the question and these programs is that the programs are best coming from the ground up with the professions, which are working hard to put down some of their more parochial concerns, and have provinces and governments that are behind them. Therefore, I believe this legislation would create that framework and that inspiration for more of this kind of work is to be done.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the week, I have been trying to understand how Bill C-5 is going to help aluminum processors and primary aluminum producers. I have not found the answer.
Perhaps my colleague can help us with that. Bill C‑5 was supposed to respond to the tariff war. How does Bill C‑5 support primary aluminum producers and aluminum processors?
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concerns and challenges raised by my colleague. I believe this bill is essential and is a big part of our response to the tariff war, although it is not the only response.
What union leaders and employers are telling us is that this bill will encourage the use of aluminum and the work these individuals do. I think that is why the Liberal members from Quebec support this bill.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague about some of the elements of the bill, some of the progressive pieces there that he wanted to speak to in terms of the criteria around nation building and how he thought that might advance the opportunity to build a strong Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think the five criteria that are in the bill, and I commend them, but I am not going to read them back into the record right now, are really what nation building is all about. If we get these five criteria right, not only for the portfolio of projects that arise from the bill and that are directly nominated through the bill, but also those that are more generally the kind of economic resurgence that I hope we can see east to west, with that imaginative, creative investment, that would create a real and important framework. There is a real stress on indigenous benefit and participation. There is a real stress on meeting our climate objectives. There is a stress on achieving our economic targets from coast to coast.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about nation building. I ask a simple question: Does he believe pipelines would be nation building? The natural resources minister cannot even say the word in the House, and the Liberals' Quebec lieutenant says Canada does not need more pipelines.
Does my colleague believe a pipeline would be a nation-building project?
Mr. Speaker, I think there are lots of projects that are going to be potentially covered by this piece of legislation. What is important is what is an investable project. This bill would provide a framework for all kinds of investable projects, including perhaps the ones that the member mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying the word “pipeline”. I do believe pipelines will be nation building.
I would actually like to start my speech by talking briefly about the contributions of some of the great Conservative members who have done a lot to improve this flawed Liberal legislation.
There is the member for Lakeland, who has been leading the debate, leading the charge on bringing transparency and accountability to this legislation, and strongly supporting and representing the people of Alberta.
The member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna has done tremendous work supporting free trade across our country. Years before it became invoked, he was pushing to free the beer and free the wine, and we all should salute his great work.
The member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North was tremendous at committee, pushing for amendments to increase accountability and transparency in this flawed Liberal bill.
Finally, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk did an absolutely tremendous job working hard at committee to restore order to this otherwise flawed legislation.
Let me now start with where we are right now. Bill C-5 contains two pieces of legislation: one is the free trade and labour mobility act of Canada; the other is the building Canada act.
The free trade act, or so it is called, would be anything but free trade. The Prime Minister promised during the campaign that there would be free trade in Canada by Canada Day. We now know, as we are closing the last day of our sitting in Parliament before summer break, that there will not be free trade in Canada by Canada Day.
This, in addition to the tax cut, the massive expenditure, the consultant expenditure, is yet another broken Liberal promise. What this bill would do is allow, in certain circumstances, the authorization of provincially regulated products and services to be recognized in the federal context. It would also allow occupations that are authorized by provincial legislation to be recognized by federal legislation.
The challenge is that this is an extremely limited scope. The actual number of interprovincial trade barriers that are federal in nature is tiny, perhaps less than 5% of the total number of trade barriers. In addition to that, there would actually be federal trade barriers that remain after the passage of this bill, so we would not even have eliminated all of the federal trade barriers.
Oftentimes, as members of the opposition, Conservatives are accused of just providing critiques without solutions. We have solutions too. As the government has seemed adept at stealing Conservative ideas, I am hoping its members are listening. We have the blue seal program, which would allow nurses and doctors to work from coast to coast without the need to get accredited again and again, which, after this legislation passes, sadly, will still need to be done in many cases.
The other thing is that many of these are in provincial jurisdictions, which we heard brought up over and over again by the other side. The reality is, though, the Prime Minister has tremendous power, the power of moral suasion and the power of vision, to bring provinces together.
If nothing else, the Prime Minister also has the power of the purse. He has the ability to provide financial incentives to provinces, like my own province of Ontario, where provincial leadership has torn down some of these barriers. Why not provide a financial incentive, additional federal funds, for those provinces that have the vision to reduce their interprovincial trade barriers? The best part about this is that it likely would not cost the treasury a dime. The reason is that tremendous amounts of economic flow can be generated by reducing these interprovincial trade barriers, allowing for greater tax revenue, which is likely an offset to the reduction of these trade barriers.
Instead, the government has chosen to miss the moment, which is a real shame and a challenge. I extend an olive branch here, as I would love to work with the government over the coming months or years, however long it stays in power, to work with the provinces to get substantive work done to remove those interprovincial trade barriers and capitalize on the much-stated $200 billion in economic flows we can benefit from with the actual reduction of interprovincial trade barriers.
The second part of this bill is the building Canada act. The building Canada act is the greatest admission of failure by a government in recent history. Let me say that again: It is the greatest admission of failure by any government in recent history.
What the government is basically saying is that over the last 10 years, the old Liberal government, which is the same as the new Liberal government, put so many barriers in the way that it was impossible to build national projects, projects of national significance, projects that bring our country together.
John A. Macdonald was able to build an entire railroad from coast to coast in the 1800s. We cannot seem to build a simple pipeline that goes across a provincial border. We cannot build roads. According to the former minister of environment, we do not even need new roads.
We have put in Bill C-69. We have put in the oil and gas cap. I should say that the Liberals have. They have also put in place the industrial carbon tax. They have so tainted the ground that it is impossible to get these projects built.
What is their solution? I have an easy one for them. Repeal Bill C-69. Get rid of the oil and gas cap. Get rid of the industrial carbon tax.
No, the Liberals' solution is to do an end-around on all of those regulations they have put in place. Why not just fix them fundamentally?
Conservatives are stuck here. We are sitting here saying, well, we want national projects to be built. We do not love the fact that they have this discretion, but we need pipelines built, we need roads built, we need railroads built, not just to grow the country economically but to unite us together. Quite frankly, the country is more divided than I can remember in my lifetime because of 10 years of Liberal government. We need to bring it together.
Conservatives were stuck, leading into committee, with a situation, a very flawed bill but a bill that would, perhaps, at least allow some projects to go forward. What did Conservatives do? We got to work. We rolled up our sleeves. We went to work. We did not simply say no and allow projects to just die on the drawing floor. We decided to work with the Bloc Québécois, quite frankly, to put in place the amendments we needed to ensure accountability and transparency.
The member for Lakeland, particularly, did a great job of drafting and leading the charge on accountability and transparency amendments that would make sure the government could not do what it does best. Liberals are going to Liberal, quite frankly, which is to engage in corruption and cronyism.
What are some of the things Conservatives have done? We have worked with the Bloc Québécois to set up a parliamentary committee that will have to be reviewed on a regular basis. We are going to get transparency and accountability on those projects. Who is building this project? Why is it being built? How much public money is going to it? This is so we know what is going on and when.
The most nefarious parts of the legislation, in total, were clauses 21 to 23. The operation of these three clauses was absolutely mind-blowing. They call these Henry VIII clauses, actually. That is a fitting name, because the operation of these three clauses would have allowed the government to exempt any national project from any legislation passed since 1867. That includes the conflict of interest laws, the lobbying laws, the laws on income tax and the laws on the Criminal Code.
Conservatives said we were not going to let that happen. We want national projects to be built, but not at the cost of Canadian taxpayers' dollars going to Liberal insiders. We have seen 10 years of that. We do not need any more.
What we did was put in place amendments or safeguards around that to prevent Liberal cronyism, because we had the crazy idea that the government should not be able to exempt itself from the Criminal Code, the conflict of interest law, the Lobbying Act and the Investment Canada Act.
By the way, the Investment Canada Act is a particularly important one, I might add. The Investment Canada Act controls the impact of foreign investment within Canada. The disclosure rules in there are absolutely critical to protecting our economy, especially in a difficult geopolitical situation.
Here is the reality. We had to get somewhere, and the Liberals brought us a car; that car came in missing a tire and half an engine, polluting all over the place. It was terrible. Conservatives spent the last two weeks working our tails off to make this bill palatable, to prevent Liberal corruption, to prevent Liberal cronyism and to, hopefully, get some projects built here.
Mr. Speaker, as the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, I would like to congratulate LiUNA Local 837 on its 75th anniversary. LiUNA is a trade union. Its members are literally building Hamilton, building this country, promoting and supporting workers in the skilled trades.
As a professional engineer licensed in Ontario, I completely agree with the member that we need increased labour mobility and professional mobility across provinces.
What would the hon. member say to workers in the skilled trades who would directly benefit from having one Canadian economy and who would directly benefit from major infrastructure projects included in Bill C-5?
Mr. Speaker, we have many great union workers and unions within Northumberland—Clarke, and I salute them, as the other member talked about.
What we really need, and what unions are, quite frankly, clamouring for, is the reduction, as the Minister of Transport said, or elimination of a thicket of regulations that is slowing economic growth and projects. If we want to get more quality union jobs, we need to make sure that not just some projects but all projects are allowed to go forward, in order to build pipelines, build roads and get more great union jobs.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, during the study of this bill, we spoke out about the fact that the government does not need to comply with any criteria or constraints in designating a project as being in the national interest. Yes, the bill does include certain criteria and factors, but the problem is that these criteria and factors are completely optional. It is entirely up to the minister to decide whether to follow them or not. That means, for example, that the minister could designate the pool they want to have built in their backyard as being of national interest. It is that crazy.
Does my colleague think that is acceptable? I do not understand why the Conservatives decided to draft their amendment in a way that allows the government to simply issue an order in council to create its own definition. Does my colleague think that that is sufficient and that we can trust the government to that degree?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for working so well together with Conservatives at committee to put in safeguards on accountability and transparency.
Projects like building a pool in one's backyard will not happen, but I would like nothing more than to work with the Bloc or any other members to fundamentally change, instead of having an end-around on the morass of regulation and burdensome taxes, to actually put in place the foundation, the environment. That way, all projects can get built as opposed to having an end-around. Unfortunately, we have not had the support of the Bloc or any other of the radical left parties in the House to eliminate things like Bill C-69, the oil and gas cap and the industrial carbon tax.
Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly tough question for my hon. colleague.
After a decade of the Liberal government, and should Bill C-5 pass, does the member actually believe that a national energy corridor will get built so that we can replace the $2 billion a year of Saudi oil that is coming into eastern Canada with Canadian oil?
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, but honestly, I do not know whether it will or not. However, I can tell the member one thing: If the Liberals do that, we will be there to help them and support them to get that national energy quota up. If they do not, we will be here to hold them accountable.
Uqaqtittiji, I completely agree that there is a huge problem with the bill, specifically because of its nature and being the one bill that would fast-track the violation of indigenous peoples' rights. I wonder if the member agrees. Will he vote against the bill so we can make sure indigenous people's rights are being protected?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very important question. What I would say to the hon. member is that Conservatives worked with other opposition members to put additional protection in for indigenous rights. A number of amendments were made, including eliminating the Indian Act from schedule 2. Schedule 2 would allow the government to exempt projects from legislation. We did not think that was right, and we will continue to push for indigenous rights in everything we do.
[Translation]
Points of Order
Voting Pattern for Report Stage of Bill C-5—Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Chair is now prepared to rule on the points of order raised by the members for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères and Northumberland—Clarke.
The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères rose on a point of order concerning the Chair's decision not to select some of his of motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-5, as they could have been presented in committee. In his remarks, the member pointed out that he would not have been able to present his amendments in committee because the deadline set by the House in the order made on Monday, June 16, 2025, had passed. For this reason, these motions should have been selected.
Pursuant to an order adopted by the House on Monday, June 16, 2025, members had the opportunity to submit amendments to Bill C-5 for consideration by the committee. Despite the time limit imposed by the order adopted by the House on the submission of amendments, members were able to exercise their rights, as evidenced by the more than 100 amendments considered by the committee. Therefore, although no amendments could be debated after midnight, all amendments submitted before the deadline indicated in the House's order were deemed moved and put to a vote, as the member for Northumberland—Clarke pointed out in his remarks on the same point of order.
The Chair understands the hon. member's concerns about the impact that expediting the consideration of bills could have on members' ability to study bills and present amendments. However, the Chair must also respect the decisions of the House with respect to the organization of its business.
The hon. member's motions that were not selected sought to amend parts of the bill that had not been amended in committee. Accordingly, these motions should have been presented in committee and the Chair maintains its decision not to select them for debate at report stage.
[English]
Furthermore, earlier this morning, the member for Northumberland—Clarke rose on a point of order requesting clarification concerning the voting pattern for Motions Nos. 18 and 19 at the report stage of Bill C-5. The member requested that each motion be subject to its own vote. The member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan also intervened to voice her support for this request.
The voting table provided this morning to the House indicated that the vote on Motion No. 18 would apply to Motion No. 19, as they both sought to further amend the same amendment that was adopted in committee.
I have reviewed the motions and considered the members' interventions, and, exceptionally, I am prepared to accept this request. For this reason, there will be one vote on Motion No. 18 and one vote on Motion No. 19. A revised voting pattern will be available at the table.
I thank all members for their attention and their contributions to the arrangement of the report stage of this bill.
[Translation]
The Application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C‑5—Speaker's Ruling
The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the member for Vancouver East regarding the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.
[English]
In the member's view, Bill C-5 is an omnibus bill with two distinct parts, and on that basis, she asked the Chair to apply Standing Order 69.1(1), which provides as follows:
In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.
At the outset, the Chair wishes to note that the member for Vancouver East has waited until quite late in the legislative process to raise this point of order. Speaker Regan, in a ruling delivered on November 7, 2017, noted that the analysis and division of the bill can be complex, so he encouraged members to raise their arguments as early as possible. He said, at page 15095 of the Debates:
Where members believe that the Standing Order should apply, I would encourage them to raise their arguments as early as possible in the process, especially given that the length of debate at a particular stage can be unpredictable. If an objection is raised too late in the process, the Chair may have no choice but to allow the matter to go to a single vote at second reading or third reading, as the case may be.
In this case, the member for Vancouver East has waited until the day on which the House will vote on the bill at third reading, mere hours before the Chair is required to put the question to the House. It seems clear to the Chair that she would have had an opportunity to do so earlier. The Chair wishes to reiterate the caution issued by Speaker Regan that members risk having points of order on the application of Standing Order 69.1 rejected by the Chair if they do not raise their arguments at an early opportunity. Legislation is often complex, and decisions on potentially splitting the votes may require careful analysis that is difficult to accomplish within a few hours.
[Translation]
In the case before us, the Chair is prepared to examine the substance of the argument presented by the member for Vancouver East only because this bill is relatively straightforward to analyze. Faced with a more complicated bill, the Chair would have been inclined to conclude that there was insufficient time to reach a considered decision.
The Chair has carefully reviewed the provisions of Bill C-5 and taken into account members' statements on the issue of dividing it for voting purposes.
Bill C‑5 has two parts. The first part enacts the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act. Part 2 enacts the building Canada act.
The first part of Bill C‑5, as its purpose clause describes, would implement mechanisms to:
...promote free trade and labour mobility by removing federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada while continuing to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians, their social and economic well-being and the environment.
The second part of Bill C-5 is intended to, and I quote:
…enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.
A close reading of these two parts does not provide a clear common element. While part 1 deals with free trade and labour mobility, and part 2 concerns the accelerated advancement of projects that are in the national interest, the purpose of each of these parts could quite easily be achieved separately. While they are ultimately designed to strengthen the Canadian economy, they deal with different issues and could very well stand independently from one another. Moreover, there is no direct relationship or cross-reference between the two parts of the bill.
[English]
The Chair is therefore willing to divide the question for voting. Accordingly, two votes will take place at the third reading stage for Bill C-5. The first vote will deal with part 1 and the short title. The second vote will be for part 2, including the schedule, which belongs to part 2. The Chair will remind members of this division of the bill once debate has concluded, when it is time to put these questions.
I thank all members for their attention.
[Translation]
One Canadian Economy Act
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Speaker, let me start off by staying that history is repeating itself. Once again, we have before us a legislative measure in the grand tradition of predatory federalism, which has no use for Quebec and the provinces and considers the Quebec nation and the provinces to be mere branch-plant economies.
What is the purpose and intent of this bill? During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told us that he was going to propose robust legislation to resolve the tariff crisis. The idea behind this measure is to build Canada. I am not surprised that he used the idea of building Canada, because the former leader of the official opposition spent three years telling us that Canada was broken.
What does surprise me is that my Conservative colleagues decided to support the government and its gag order. That is pretty ironic considering that, during the election campaign, I heard Pierre Poilievre say that, if a Liberal government were elected, inflation would be so high that people would be forced to hunt for food. I am teasing, but I will stop there because I do not want to be too hard on Mr. Poilievre, who is probably watching at home.
The government's intention is to provide a legislative response to the tariff crisis. Bill C‑5 does anything but respond to the tariff crisis.
First of all, I would like to consider the definition of a project of national interest. My colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who did excellent work on Bill C‑5, tried to introduce an amendment that would have allowed us to define what constitutes a project of national interest. In my opinion, that amendment was not accepted because the government quickly forgets that there is more than one nation in Canada. There are the indigenous nations and the Quebec nation. Since the government is quick to forget, I wonder in which nation's interest these projects will be carried out. They will certainly not be projects that are in Quebec's interests, since the amendments that would have required the government to get Quebec's approval were rejected, as were the amendments that would have required approval by indigenous nations.
Clearly, the bill in its current form is aimed at defending the interests of the Canadian nation. I am not trying to be flippant, but these interests often coincide with the interests of the oil and gas industry. We will come back to that later.
I was talking about the government's objective and the situation we are in, which leads me to a very basic question: In what way does this bill support Quebec's economy? In what way does it address the crisis that Quebec is facing right now, namely, the tariffs that are being imposed mainly on the aluminum industry? Frankly, it does not address that at all.
In my opinion, we have to differentiate the bill's objective from the situation we are in. The situation is the tariff crisis. The government's answer gives it a way of reducing the regulatory obstacles it is facing, especially for oil and gas projects. Even if the Liberals do not want to say so, this bill will, above all, facilitate new oil and gas projects.
Let me give you an example that occurred this week and that I found just appalling. I asked the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons if he did not find it outrageous that the government had paid $34 billion for the Trans Mountain expansion, knowing that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had stated that that oil and gas infrastructure would have to be used to maximum capacity for 40 years for it to be cost effective. I asked the government leader if he did not find that outrageous. His answer was that we will build Canada the way Robert Bourassa built Quebec with Hydro-Québec. What incredible irony.
Do members know how much money the federal government put into Hydro Québec? It did not contribute one red cent. Quebeckers paid for the biggest energy infrastructure in Quebec. They never got any support from the federal government. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has the nerve to use that as an example. To him, building Canada is doing what Robert Bourassa did. There is a disconnect. I think that my colleague should take a history lesson to better understand Quebec's economy.
I have been saying from the outset that the government's goal was to respond to the tariff crisis. How does this bill respond to the tariffs affecting Quebec? The answer is that it does not respond to those tariffs in any way. Let me prove it. Quebec is affected by the 50% tariffs on aluminum. When we talk about aluminum, we have to make the distinction between producers of primary aluminum and aluminum processors.
The United States currently consumes four million tonnes of aluminum per year. Of those four million tonnes, 3.3 million tonnes come from Canada, mostly from my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, and also from the north shore. The government says it wants to carry out major projects, in other words, infrastructure that would require the use of more aluminum. I cannot imagine what magic trick the government thinks it can pull off to replace a market of 3.3 million tonnes of aluminum per year. We will never consume that much in Canada.
This week, the government decided to propose some measures that I described as impotent, saying that they would impose certain quotas. That might work for steel, but it does not apply at all to aluminum. This bill will therefore have no impact on the tariff crisis affecting the aluminum sector.
It gets even worse. In 2019, during the CUSMA negotiations, a Canadian negotiator candidly told us that the government had dropped the ball. The only industry that would not be protected under the 2019 CUSMA was the aluminum industry. Steel had some form of protection. The Bloc Québécois speaks from experience because this was the first fight that we waged in the House when we came back in 2019. We wanted to make sure that the aluminum industry would be protected. This is an ongoing issue that proves that the government never pays attention to Quebec's industries.
The same is true for the forestry sector, which has been paying countervailing duties since 2017. Ten billion dollars in countervailing duties is currently being held captive in the United States, including $2 billion from Quebec. The federal government has always refused to implement a liquidity program that would have helped people in the forestry sector. It has always refused to implement that measure, so much so that today we are seeing many small sawmills in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, on the north shore and in the Gaspé Peninsula shutting down, which jeopardizes the economic vitality of the regions of Quebec. Instead of implementing measures that would have supported the Quebec economy, what the government is proposing is Bill C‑5, a measure that will help it build pipelines.
I will wrap up by saying that the history tends to repeat itself. I remember another crisis we went through in 2008. We all remember the 2008 crisis. The government responded quickly by announcing an $8-billion investment in the auto sector. We realized only later that it was far from a loan; it was a gift that had been given to the auto sector. The government never wanted to put a penny into the forestry industry in 2008.
Now history is repeating itself. A bill is being proposed that does not meet the expectations of Quebeckers. Once again, this is predatory federalism. No measures are being proposed to support the economic pillars of Quebec, and the government is trying to ram this down our throats by imposing closure. To me, that is far from a triumph.
Mr. Speaker, we were always extremely clear and transparent throughout the election. We made two strong commitments: unify the Canadian economy, including by eliminating barriers to internal trade, and build major projects of national interest. Over 8.5 million Canadians voted for our plan, which enabled us to win 44 seats in Quebec. As a result, we now have exceptional new colleagues in the House.
I want to ask my colleague the following question. Will he respect the will of voters, particularly those in Quebec, who asked us to strengthen and unify the Canadian economy, and will he vote in favour of Bill C‑5?
Mr. Speaker, I would advise my Liberal colleagues from Quebec to listen to voters. The government cheated us out of $800 million by giving all Canadians a carbon tax rebate even though that tax had not been collected. I am not convinced that the people who voted for the Liberal Party are happy today.
With Bill C‑5, the government is proposing to build infrastructure that will not have any impact whatsoever on Quebec. On the two major industries in Quebec hit by tariffs, the government has remained silent.
If I were in my colleague's shoes, I would do some soul searching and I would realize that someone has dropped the ball somewhere.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, we have various concerns about the form and the substance. I will get back to that in a speech in a few minutes.
In my colleague's opinion, what happens when bills are put forward that have so many implications and consequences for the future and the time isn't taken to listen to citizens, municipalities, the provinces, scientists, environmentalists and first nations?
Mr. Speaker, I always agree with my colleague from the NDP.
Yes, it is true, there was a major gas infrastructure project in Quebec and in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It was GNL Québec. The developers said again and again that if the environmental assessments were not favourable to the project, they would step back. What did they do when they got the results of those assessments? They sued the Quebec government for millions of dollars.
Now the government wants to fast-track projects whose details are unknown. Just think of the developers who we will turn down and the money that will have to be spent. This bill is a disaster in the making.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what my esteemed colleague thinks is the cause of all the broken promises we have seen from the new Liberal government.
Does he think it might have something to do with the ministerial musical chairs we have seen going on in the Liberal cabinet? Who on earth promotes failed team leaders in the real world and expects better results?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite referred to Canada's “new” government. That has been raised as a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, personally, I do not really understand why my Conservative colleagues are grumbling about Bill C-5.
Earlier, during oral question period, my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said that he thinks it is a Pierre Poilievre bill wearing a red tie. I honestly think that the Conservatives' and Liberals' shared interest in this bill is founded on the sacred bond between those who are pro-oil. The Conservatives should be happy.
Mr. Speaker, as a female MP, I would like to take up the point that my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche made. Not all colleagues elected to the House are exceptional. I think there is a petition going around against one of his colleagues that was launched by a group of women. My colleague is a scholar, he is educated and he knows what “exceptional” means. When he said that, it had an impact on me as a woman. Perhaps he might reconsider his comment.
I would like my colleague to tell me why the Liberals were against the amendments that call for the provinces and Quebec to be consulted.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is another example of predatory federalism. The government's objective is to have one economy and just one type of assessment, and be able to shove fossil fuel energy projects down Quebec's throat when they do not meet our expectations. It is going to put billions of dollars into that. What the government is doing is ensuring that it has the regulatory environment to complete this project that only responds to the oil and gas industry's needs.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-5, which is a monster of a bill. Unfortunately, I am also a little disappointed in our parliamentary institutions, because our rights as parliamentarians are being trampled on. We have not had much opportunity to discuss this bill, even though it has very wide-ranging implications and far-reaching consequences that will persist for years to come, perhaps even for decades to come.
I want to talk about both the form and the substance of the bill. However, before addressing the substance, I would like to point out that this week, we are witnessing a kind of parliamentary power grab by the Liberal government, which is quite damaging and sad. There are even people, notably those at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, who say that this is a way of circumventing democracy. It is a way of bypassing parliamentarians and bypassing the normal process of studying a bill, which would have allowed us to improve it and determine all its consequences and implications.
For fast-tracked approvals involving huge national infrastructure projects whose content, scope and nature is not entirely clear, we should be sitting down with communities across the country and listening to what they have to say. We should be hearing from experts, scientists and first nations, who have constitutionally recognized rights. We should also be hearing from municipalities, the provinces and Canadians, who have concerns of their own. The government, however, is ramming this bill down our throats in just a few days. One committee meeting was held to discuss and adopt amendments. I have never seen the likes of it. It is Stephen Harper all over again but on steroids. I do not know what has gotten into the Liberals. There was absolutely no national emergency to justify passing this bill so quickly. It opens the door to mistakes that could have serious and very long-term consequences.
This bill has two parts. It so clearly has two parts that I want to congratulate my NDP colleague from Vancouver East on successfully splitting the bill so we can have two votes. Indeed, the two parts cover two completely different subjects. My colleague did some excellent work here, and I want to congratulate her again. The conversation about reducing non-tariff barriers is something we generally agree on, if it can help interprovincial trade and make life easier for our entrepreneurs. Labour mobility is obviously something we have been calling for, as have unions and workers. As we see it, the fact that we can support that part is a good thing.
However, we will still be extremely cautious when the time comes to adopt regulations and see how this is going to be implemented. Reducing non-tariff barriers between the provinces must not trigger a race to the bottom, to lowest-common-denominator standards and regulations that could make certain occupational health and safety situations more dangerous or pose a danger to the public. We agree in principle, but we will have to see how they intend to implement this.
As for the second part of the bill, which is causing a lot of talk in society, we have many concerns about it too. Many people are writing to our offices, and many groups want to contact us. They say we need to proceed with caution, because it is dangerous. The government is putting things in the bill that have never been done before. The consequences could be serious and irreversible. I think the word “irreversible” is especially important. We are stepping onto a slippery slope, and there will be no way to climb back up.
There are a number of problems. Equiterre, a well-known environmental organization in Quebec, wrote us to raise quite a few points that deserved to be debated here. Equiterre says that the bill is vague about definitions, the nature of projects and their impact on communities, and that it is problematic with respect to circumventing environmental statutes and regulations, weakening accountability mechanisms and public participation, potentially infringing on provincial powers, and concentrating powers in the hands of the executive branch, particularly one minister.
That is extremely worrisome and all of those points are problematic for us. The bill contains some extremely vague definitions and I will quote the bill directly so that everyone understands: "The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence".
It seems that, ultimately, what is important to the Liberals is investor confidence. We all agree on the part before that. We in the NDP agree that there should be infrastructure projects. We agree that projects should be carried out and that there should be development. We agree on creating good jobs, especially good unionized jobs. The member for Winnipeg-Centre was able to get an amendment passed to indicate the importance of unionized jobs. That is crucial to us in the NDP.
Many infrastructure projects, especially those relating to transportation, could be very beneficial to various communities. High-speed rail in Canada would be a very good thing. In our opinion, building truly affordable housing, social housing and co-operative housing while we are in the midst of a housing crisis is a project of national interest. There are also the intercity transportation projects in the regions. All those projects would create jobs and help all of our communities.
However, the proposals in this bill are a bit vague and hazy. It is a bit of a catch-all. It gives one minister and one office the authority to unilaterally decide whether projects should be put on the list of projects of national interest.
What are these criteria? The first is to “strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security”. That is fine. The second is to “provide economic or other benefits to Canada”. Putting the term “or other” in a bill means the sky is the limit. The third criterion is to “have a high likelihood of successful execution”. The bill ensures that, once a project makes the list, it is guaranteed to move forward.
The fourth criterion is to “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”. That is interesting. What does advancing the interests of indigenous peoples mean if their rights are not respected? What does advancing their interests mean if we fail to uphold treaties, abide by the Constitution or respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? That is not what was written down, so we have to be extremely cautious. The fifth criterion is to “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change”.
I do not see how far-fetched notions like decarbonized oil can be considered clean growth. There is no such thing. Increasing oil and gas production, particularly in the oil sands, is completely incompatible with the Paris Agreement, with meeting our 2030 targets and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. On the contrary, all of the reports from the environment commissioners tell us that we are on the wrong track and will not meet our targets. They are telling us that the Liberals have been dragging their feet for 10 years and have embarked on all sorts of contradictory policies, and as a result, no one takes them seriously.
What must be understood is that we have been told time and again that the minister's power is excessive and discretionary. He relies on the criteria I just read. Once a project is on the list, it is not a matter of if the project will be carried out, but when and how. All of society's checks and balances are muzzled—a reality we are familiar with—and can no longer do anything. By then it is too late, and the game is over. We are stuck with the project, regardless of the consequences, regardless of whether the consultations were done properly or not, regardless of whether the issue was properly studied or not, regardless of whether the groups were heard or not, and regardless of whether the rights of first nations are respected or not. The Liberal Party is giving the government and the minister who will be responsible the power to do this.
In fact, what we are witnessing today are Stephen Harper's and Pierre Poilievre's wildest dreams coming true. What we are seeing today is the Prime Minister of Canada taking his mask off, lifting it over his head, and declaring that he had been a Conservative all along and had simply not told us. That is why we are seeing this Conservative-Liberal alliance in the House right now, not only to pass this dangerous bill but also to do so by imposing closure and trampling on the rights of the members here. We are here to represent the people who elected us. We have serious work to do. What we in the NDP are saying is that the government should have taken the time to do things right. This shoddy work is not going to create jobs; it is going to create lawsuits. It will create litigation. It will end up in the courts, and the only ones who will benefit from the situation are the lawyers who will be raking in their fees.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have expressed to members of the Bloc that, on April 28, Canadians sent a very strong message, not only to the leader of the Liberal Party but also to all members of the House, and the Prime Minister of Canada has made it very clear that this is in fact a reflection of a very clear mandate that was given to the House.
We appreciate the support coming from the Conservatives, but the Bloc and the New Democrats are completely offside, coming up with issues to filibuster or to not allow the bill to even pass. Fortunately, because of working with the Conservatives, we now will be able to get the bill passed.
Why is the member not respecting the mandate that was actually given to every member of the House to build one strong Canadian economy—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I respect the mandate that the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie gave me, which is to defend their interests, good jobs, the environment and the rights of indigenous peoples. That is what I am doing here today.
The second thing I would like to say is that this bill does something absolutely unprecedented and extraordinary. It allows projects of national interest to not comply with existing federal laws, especially environmental protection laws.
Équiterre is clear on this:
Schedule 2...identifies which laws the government may choose to ignore, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations and the Marine Mammal Regulations.
Schedule 2 to Bill C‑5 makes it possible to circumvent federal environmental protection laws.
What is going on here?
[English]
Uqaqtittiji, I am glad that my colleague touched on indigenous peoples in his speech as well. I think that by the brilliance of our colleague, the member for Vancouver East, the parties will now be able to vote separately on part 1 and part 2.
I wonder whether the member can share with us what this opens up as an opportunity for the Conservatives who, during the debates, have been touting the protection of indigenous peoples' rights all along. This is their opportunity to act on what they have been debating on, while ensuring that indigenous peoples' rights are protected by voting “no” to part 2 of the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. Advocating for the people of Nunavut, the Inuit, is always her top priority, as is defending the rights of indigenous peoples.
During the short amount of time we had for discussions, the Conservatives touted the importance of reconciliation, working with the indigenous peoples and respecting treaties and their rights. Indeed, we can now all vote together on part 1, which will reduce trade barriers between the provinces and stimulate the economy and labour mobility.
If the Conservatives want to prove that they are consistent and willing to put their money where their mouths are, they now have the opportunity to keep part 1 and move forward. Then they can vote against part 2 and come back here for a real discussion, a real study and a real debate with parliamentarians, as well as with first nations, experts and environmental groups.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, let me get this right. The New Democrats, the seven independent members, have decided that they are going to vote in favour of part 1, but they are in opposition to projects deemed to be in the national best interest, even though there are all sorts of safeguards in play to protect things such as indigenous consultations and rights, and so forth.
Let us be very clear that the New Democrats are becoming more and more irrelevant, for the simple fact that they are not putting Canadians first—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order. There is a little noise coming from all sides of the House.
The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants to develop projects of national interest that serve communities, respect first nations and guarantee a healthy environment for everyone, everywhere. There are ways to achieve that, but this bill offers us no guarantees. It gives one minister all the power to choose the projects.
Once this bill is passed, we could end up with projects that cross through communities and provinces, that increase our greenhouse gas emissions and that pose a danger to the environment.
That is what the NDP fears.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep sadness. As I see it, this debate on Bill C‑5 is a huge tragedy.
[English]
While the Liberals say they achieved the mandate in an election, we worked together, the leaders of the opposition parties, previously, with Justin Trudeau. We said we were team Canada, that we would to work together, push back on what Trump wants to do and defend Canada's economic sovereignty. However, grabbing that and claiming that Bill C-5 is a response to how Canadians and all of us in the opposition parties feel about protecting our economy from Trump and pretending that this unprecedented power grab was ever discussed in the election is a sham. We can add an “e” to that: It is a shame.
What we have done here is create the impression, and certainly the Liberals are saying it over and over again, that passing Bill C-5 would be a response to Trump and that it would protect our economy, by railroading the act through, passing it, and then saying that cabinet alone can decide whether a project is in the national interest, and then its approval process would take two years. We do not know what projects are under consideration, but large projects generally take a long time to build or put in place, eight to 10 years, and five years minimum.
There is massive pressure that it needs to be done now, when there is so much more we could do to protect our economy. We could create strategic reserves of Canadian natural resources. We could ensure that Canadian industries and Canadian workers are protected.
However, what the Liberals have done has, honestly, shocked me, because I did not expect this. I really thought we would have a government that understood the need to proclaim Canadian sovereignty and protect our economy but not trample on democracy to do it. I noted that the media said that the bill “sailed through committee”. That is an interesting turn of phrase from our national public broadcaster. I support the CBC, but this kind of thing makes me think of Pierre Poilievre's points. Never mind; I support the CBC. However, the bill did not sail through committee; the bill was forced through committee.
[Translation]
It went through what we call a guillotine process.
[English]
We have had a guillotine process at every stage: abbreviated debate at second reading and definitely massively abbreviated opportunity to hear witnesses, so many experts in environmental law and experts in indigenous rights and title holders. All of the aspects of the legislation that are controversial have never been properly aired or discussed.
[Translation]
The process used to pass Bill C‑5 is problematic. It is being rushed to an unprecedented degree, unlike any other time that a bill was forced through Parliament since I first had the great honour of serving as member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I have never seen anything like it.
[English]
It is a twofold concern I have at report stage. Yes, we have made some amendments in committee, but they do not touch on the major concerns that people have about the legislation. I do appreciate the Speaker's ruling that part 1 and part 2 will be separated, but how can we have a vote on a bill that would give unprecedented powers to a prime minister and cabinet to choose projects that would be accelerated and expedited to such an extent that they could ignore other pieces of legislation?
There are experts, and I will hold up Jody Wilson-Raybould, our former minister of justice, as an example. She is not just someone who has a sharp legal mind and to whose advice we should be listening; she is also someone who spent her life following in her father's footsteps in protecting indigenous rights and understanding them.
While the preamble to the bill says that free, prior and informed consent is important, the way the law would operate would not allow for that. That is where I am deeply concerned that we are running roughshod over things that we care about in this country, things that we have passed in our Parliament, such as support for the respect for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which, in the bill before us, are now found inconvenient because we want to build things fast.
What things? We will find out later. How fast? Who knows? What laws will we push out of the way? What indigenous rights concerns do we think will take second place?
[Translation]
What happens if they take last place?
What can we do with a bill like this and with a process like the one we are seeing today in the House of Commons?
[English]
This is a moment. We have some good amendments before us at report stage to reduce the extent of unaccountability in cabinet's deciding what projects are going to be considered in this expedited process. We have an opportunity. I ask the members of the governing party to consider that this is not an electoral college. We are Parliament. We are a Westminster parliamentary democracy where each member of Parliament is to vote for how they believe their constituents would want to see them vote.
If this was a question, as the government seems to want us to believe, of voting up or down on Canada's economy, there is no question that, of course, Canadian parliamentarians would want our economy to do well. Will this law take us there? There are so many other options, but we have not had any chance to discuss them, nor have we had a chance to adequately review this bill.
[Translation]
I completely agree with what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said in his speech, because this is irreversible.
[English]
Once we take the step, we cannot go back without going back to Parliament and changing the law.
[Translation]
These are unprecedented powers. With the decision that they will remain in effect for five years, we have a problem.
[English]
We have a real problem of this bill creating not an opportunity to build our economy, but a potential for the expansion of powers of the Prime Minister and cabinet that we have never seen in this country before, with the least amount of debate I have ever seen on a bill.
[Translation]
As everyone now understands, it is an omnibus bill that will have enormous consequences. The decisions may reduce the opportunities for projects that are important to our nation.
[English]
If we end up, as often haste makes waste, pulled back into court, we will definitely see challenges. I particularly note the maiden speech of the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a Conservative who said that when projects are built in his territory, the environmental assessments help build better projects, with the time it takes to study, the time it takes to reflect and the engagement of people. Indigenous peoples, Canadians, communities, territories, provinces and local governments need to be engaged to have successful projects.
The factors that are listed are not requirements, and no matter what has been said over and over again in this place about passing this bill to protect our economy, I urge the thoughtful members of the Liberal Party in this place to think twice and vote for the amendments at report stage that improve this act and reduce the chances that it will be abused, not just in the future, but in the very near future.
A section like subclause 6(1) says that in the future, we will just deem that all these decisions have been made in favour of advancing a project. We will not worry about it, because we will decide ahead of time. It will be verdict first, evidence later. This is not the way that Canadian Parliament behaves, reflects or engages in democracy in this country.
I deeply hope that we will see support from government members for the amendments that have been put forward at report stage from the Bloc and the Greens. We hope to see improvements.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the leader of the Green Party has been very consistent over the years. The concern I have, which was really emphasized in the last federal election, is that we need to be able to build a strong, healthy economy, and that means looking at national projects. If it was up to the leader of the Green Party, the studies that would be done would ultimately be endless. We would not even be able to pass legislation.
Does the member see any sense of passing legislation of this nature given the concerns that she raises?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary, with whom I enjoy a good relationship.
This legislation is an abomination, and one that will be a stain on the the reputation of the government and our Prime Minister. As a first effort to lead this country, it is a bad effort, and I am very sad to say that this legislation could have been improved if it had been studied at all, if the voices that had been silenced had been heard.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my Green Party colleague for her diligent work on this bill. Although she does not sit on the committee, I had the opportunity to read all the amendments she put forward, sometimes even late into the night. It is not easy to do the work when it is clear that there will be little support around the table.
I had the opportunity to vote in favour of most of her amendments. I would like her to tell us whether she is proud to be Canadian knowing that her suggestions were rejected by all the parties in the House except for the sovereignists.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois for the rigorous work he did in committee, particularly by moving amendments and focusing his efforts on improving the bill.
I am a sovereignist myself, but for planet Earth. I work tirelessly for our future and the future of our grandchildren, but today I am afraid. It is not yet too late for the Earth or for us here, on this planet, but it is almost too late. Time is of the essence. This bill is a threat to the climate.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I know the member believes deeply in rail transportation and having affordable transportation for all folks. Would she perhaps grant me that one of the national projects that could be approved is additional rail? It would help all Canadians and is really the reason Canada exists to begin with.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Northumberland—Clarke. We worked together in an informal rail caucus to promote the use of passenger rail. It should be linked with affordable bus transportation. Most Canadians cannot afford to get from place to place on public transit, because it is so limited.
There are many great projects; I grant him that, and I would love to see them move ahead: an east-west, north-south electricity grid and an interlinked passenger rail and bus system. There are many projects in the national interest, but we do not know what they will be, and the factors in the bill are not requirements. We could have a great project that we all want to see go ahead or we could have a nightmare, and right now, there is no way to know the difference. We have to just cross our fingers and hope that the government's plans are good ones, because this, as the old expression goes, is a pig in a poke or a blank cheque. That is what we are passing when the bill is forced through.
It being 1:50 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 16, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 24. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the questions to be put on Motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 18.
[Translation]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 23)
YEAS
Members
Barsalou-DuvalBeaulieu
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Bonin
Boulerice
Brunelle-Duceppe
Champoux
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
DeBellefeuille
Deschênes
Erskine-Smith
Fortin
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Idlout
Johns
Kwan
Larouche
Lemire
May
McPherson
Normandin
Perron
Plamondon
Savard-Tremblay
Simard
Ste-Marie
Thériault
Total: -- 31
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Battiste
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Block
Blois
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Gasparro
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 306
PAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 4. A negative vote on Motion No. 4 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 5.
[Translation]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
I see the chief government whip rising.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberals voting against.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 24)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Ma
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Plamondon
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 163
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blair
Blois
Boulerice
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 174
PAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 5.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
I see the chief government whip rising.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberals voting against.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 25)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Idlout
Jackson
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Johns
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Ma
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McPherson
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Plamondon
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 170
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blair
Blois
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gerretsen
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Jaczek
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 167
PAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
I declare Motion No. 5 carried.
The question is on Motion No. 7.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The chief government whip.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberals voting in favour.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 26)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Blois
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Savard-Tremblay
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thériault
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 337
NAYS
NilPAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
I declare the motion carried.
The question is on Motion No. 9. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 16.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The chief government whip.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberals voting yes.
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 27)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Battiste
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Block
Blois
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Gasparro
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 307
NAYS
Members
Barsalou-DuvalBeaulieu
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Bonin
Boulerice
Brunelle-Duceppe
Champoux
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
DeBellefeuille
Deschênes
Fortin
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Idlout
Johns
Kwan
Larouche
Lemire
May
McPherson
Normandin
Perron
Plamondon
Savard-Tremblay
Simard
Ste-Marie
Thériault
Total: -- 30
PAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
I declare Motion No. 9 carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 16 carried.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 11.
[English]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberals voting nay.
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 28)
YEAS
Members
Barsalou-DuvalBeaulieu
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Bonin
Boulerice
Brunelle-Duceppe
Champoux
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
DeBellefeuille
Deschênes
Fortin
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Idlout
Johns
Kwan
Larouche
Lemire
May
McPherson
Normandin
Perron
Plamondon
Savard-Tremblay
Simard
Ste-Marie
Thériault
Total: -- 30
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Battiste
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Block
Blois
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Gasparro
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 307
PAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
I declare Motion No. 11 defeated.
The question is on Motion No. 15. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 21 to 23.
[Translation]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberals voting nay.
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 29)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Block
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Diotte
Doherty
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Ma
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Small
Steinley
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 140
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Bonin
Boulerice
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
DeBellefeuille
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Savard-Tremblay
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thériault
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 197
PAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
I declare Motion No. 15 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 21 to 23 defeated.
The question is on Motion No. 18.
[Translation]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberals voting yea.
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 30)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Blois
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Savard-Tremblay
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thériault
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 337
NAYS
NilPAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
I declare Motion No. 18 carried.
The question is on Motion No. 19.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberals voting nay.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 31)
YEAS
Members
Barsalou-DuvalBeaulieu
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Bonin
Boulerice
Brunelle-Duceppe
Champoux
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
DeBellefeuille
Deschênes
Erskine-Smith
Fortin
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Idlout
Johns
Kwan
Larouche
Lemire
May
McPherson
Normandin
Perron
Plamondon
Savard-Tremblay
Simard
Ste-Marie
Thériault
Total: -- 31
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Battiste
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Block
Blois
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Gasparro
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 306
PAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
[English]
Hon. Steven MacKinnon (for the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 32)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Battiste
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Block
Blois
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Gasparro
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 313
NAYS
Members
Barsalou-DuvalBeaulieu
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Bonin
Brunelle-Duceppe
Champoux
DeBellefeuille
Deschênes
Erskine-Smith
Fortin
Garon
Gaudreau
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Larouche
Lemire
May
Normandin
Perron
Plamondon
Savard-Tremblay
Simard
Ste-Marie
Thériault
Total: -- 24
PAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 21 on page 15 with the following:
[English]
“(3) The Minister must, not later than 30 days before the”
All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, it is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C‑5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 10 with the following:
“with the government of the province or territory in which the project will be carried out, and obtain its written consent if the project falls within areas of exclusive provincial or territorial jurisdic-”.
[English]
All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, it is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
moved that Bill C‑5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, be read the third time and passed.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Canada is at a critical moment. U.S. tariffs are battering our country and threatening to push the world economy into a recession. Hard-working Canadians are losing their jobs, businesses are losing their customers and investors are holding back.
[Translation]
A few weeks ago, I travelled to Saskatoon with the Prime Minister and my colleagues, the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. We met with the premiers of the provinces and territories. We discussed our plan to strengthen Canada's economic foundations, including through a unified domestic market. We agreed that we need to work together to build Canada.
[English]
We agreed to move together quickly to get this done. That is why it is so essential for us to press ahead with a project that costs nothing and can be accomplished at the stroke of a pen: delivering free trade in Canada. According to a 2019 study by the IMF, the impact of these internal barriers is equivalent to imposing a 7% tariff barrier on ourselves.
A 2016 report by Trevor Tombe and Lukas Albrecht in the Canadian Journal of Economics found that removing all barriers to internal trade and labour mobility could lower prices in Canada by up to 15%. A 2016 study by the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce found that lifting barriers to internal trade could boost productivity by up to 7%.
Free trade in our own country makes sense. For our businesses, it means a bigger domestic market and less red tape.
[Translation]
For workers, this means more opportunities, more jobs, the freedom to pursue their careers anywhere in the country without barriers that penalize them, and the assurance that their qualifications will be recognized no matter where they live. This fundamental freedom to move and work will strengthen individual autonomy and the national social fabric.
[English]
Now that the LCBO is not stocking American wine, it makes more sense than ever to be sure that Nova Scotia and B.C. wines can be found on its shelves. A registered nurse qualified in Saskatchewan should be able to get right to work if her family moves to Newfoundland to be close to aging relatives. A plumbing firm in Winnipeg should as easily be able to expand to do jobs in Kenora as it can in Brandon. A trucker should be able to drive from the Halifax Harbour to the port of Vancouver without buying permits to cross between provinces and wasting precious time making technical adjustments after he rolls across each provincial line.
Freer internal trade and easier labour mobility will also help boost our housing industry, including the construction of the modular homes we need to build more homes faster and more affordably.
[Translation]
Ultimately, the decision to build one Canadian economy out of 13 is a decision to trust one another. It is about deciding that the delicious steak that people eat in Calgary is surely good enough to serve in Charlottetown, and that the dental hygienist whose patients in Moncton adore her can be counted on to do the same excellent work when she moves to Quebec City.
[English]
The wave of patriotism that has swept across our great country over the past few months has been truly inspiring and invigorating. Let us seize that moment and turn that love of Canada that we all have into action by trusting each other and creating one single Canadian economy from coast to coast to coast.
[Translation]
That is why we introduced this bill. We want to eliminate domestic trade barriers and build one Canadian economy. For far too long, senseless barriers have curbed trade. It is time to mutually recognize provincial and territorial regulations to facilitate trade by Canadian companies throughout the country and allow skilled workers to seize opportunities, wherever they may be.
[English]
What is really great is that today, momentum is growing across the country to build one Canadian economy. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have all already passed legislation to remove barriers to internal trade. British Columbia has introduced its historic economic stabilization act. Quebec is advancing its own legislative reforms. Also, I do want to take a moment to salute the leadership of Alberta on this important issue.
The provinces are working together. Memoranda of understanding between Ontario and other provinces, including Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as well as powerful regional agreements, like the new west partnership, signal new levels of co-operation and a commitment to bring down barriers to internal trade. Our provincial colleagues get it. They are doing the work.
This legislation that we are voting on today, together, is about all of us, members of Canada's national Parliament, joining the provinces in their hard work and doing the federal government's fair share. This bill is an important step towards free trade in Canada.
I want to be clear. Even after today's historic vote, there will be more work to be done, and it is incumbent on all of us to maintain the momentum, to get to truly free trade and truly free labour mobility across our great country, to really build one Canadian economy.
That is why, on July 8, the Committee on Internal Trade will meet in Quebec City to push this effort forward and why, on July 15 and 16, my Department of Transport is bringing together leaders from across the country for a two-day hackathon in Toronto to cut red tape for truckers.
[Translation]
I encourage all members of the House to support this work and deliver on the promise of a truly unified economy.
[English]
These are not partisan goals. In fact, colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been championing some of these issues for some time, and I am grateful to them for their work and for their support of this legislation.
That is because this bill is about nation-building priorities. This is a bill that will be good for every region, every business and every Canadian. This is a bill about Canadians trusting each other and working together as Canadians. It is about us doing what Australia did three decades ago, through mutual recognition. That action in Australia pulled that great country together and made every single Australian a little more prosperous. It is high time that we as Canadians do the same thing. I am so delighted and so proud that that is what we are doing with this legislation.
What a delicious irony it will be for all of us, as Canadians, to respond to the tariffs imposed from abroad by finally tearing down the tariff and trade barriers that we have imposed on each other. Let us get this done once and for all. Let us come together and deliver free trade in Canada. Let us do this together.
Mr. Speaker, I have one question. Last fall, our hon. colleague resigned from the former government's cabinet because she felt she had lost confidence in former Prime Minister Trudeau's fiscal negligence.
How does the minister rationalize this new Prime Minister's fiscal negligence, which is even worse than Justin Trudeau's?
Mr. Speaker, I did what needed to be done in December. It was a hard thing to do, but it was the right thing to do for our party and for our country.
I was very proud, in the past election, to campaign under the banner of our new Prime Minister. I am very proud to be advancing legislation that will do what I said in my resignation letter we needed to do, and that is build Canada in response to the U.S. tariffs.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is well aware that the Bloc Québécois supports the first part of the bill, which the minister also supports.
I have a more technical question for her. Once the bill is passed, we believe that Quebec dairy producers and slaughterhouses could quickly be federally licensed. Basically, we would no longer have to rely on the federal government and they would quickly receive a licence.
Can the minister tell me approximately how long it would take for slaughterhouses to become federally licensed once the bill has received royal assent? What is the timeline?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for supporting this part of the bill.
I would like to point out that Premier Legault is in agreement. When we were in Saskatoon, he very clearly stated that the meeting was constructive. As he said, “We will continue to support Quebec's grand economic ambitions, create good, well-paying jobs and strengthen our economy in the face of Donald Trump's threats.” We agree.
Slaughterhouses are definitely one of the things that can really grow Quebec's economy. The member—
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for running on a banner that promised Canadians the building of a strong economy.
Maybe the minister can talk about how the bill would impact regions like my region in southwestern Ontario, a region that often faces bottlenecks and interprovincial barriers. What impact would there be for workers in our region?
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have been hearing from businesses across the country, including businesses in southwestern Ontario, is that our barriers to interprovincial trade are so high that often, after a business was strong enough to expand beyond its local market, the first thing a Canadian business would think to do was export to the United States. That is very much true of southwestern Ontario with its strong cross-border trade. That is one of the reasons the legislation is so timely and so appropriate.
As we are facing tariff barriers from south of the border, now is the moment to make it frictionless for our businesses, including businesses in southwestern Ontario, to trade with other Canadians. It is what we need to do.
Mr. Speaker, we are now at third reading of Bill C-5, our final opportunity in the House to speak to the legislation before it moves to the Senate.
Let me start here: Canadians are not short on talent, we are not short on ambition, and we are certainly not short on natural resources. What we are short on is a government that knows how to unleash that potential and get things built. I hear all the time that people are ready to work, businesses want to expand and communities are waiting for critical infrastructure, but over and over again we run into the same thing: bureaucratic bottlenecks, over-regulation, and a government more interested in announcing headline-grabbing projects than permitting economically important ones.
The bill is about getting big things built, and that should matter a whole lot. Faced with the economic challenges of their own creation, the Liberals have said numerous times recently that this is the moment. What would have met the moment is scrapping Bill C-69, scrapping the shipping ban, and scrapping the oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax.
At committee, Conservatives rolled up our sleeves and got to work. We saw that the bill would create a series of loopholes that would have allowed ministers and the prime minister to bypass Canada's ethics laws, the Conflict of Interest Act, lobbying rules, the protections under the Criminal Code, and the Auditor General Act, among others. Under the original draft of the bill, a minister could have approved a project that would benefit their own investments, and no one would have been the wiser.
We also saw that the bill as originally drafted would have given the government too much power, so we fought back, and we won. With the support of opposition colleagues, Conservative MPs passed amendments to close loopholes, ensure stricter controls and bring about transparency and accountability.
We made sure that public office holders would have to recuse themselves in the event of a conflict. We established a mandatory national security review for foreign state-owned proponents. We added a public registry of projects, clear rationales and a timeline to publish criteria within 15 days of royal assent. We created a mechanism for parliamentary oversight, requiring regular reporting. We mandated public consultation reporting. We forbade the government from exercising extraordinary powers when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued.
Conservatives made the bill better. We delivered transparency, oversight and guardrails. I want to thank my colleagues on the transport committee for their hard work.
However, let me be clear: While we made it better, we cannot pretend that the bill is the be-all and end-all of meeting the moment. Let us look at part 1 of the bill, which is about free trade and labour mobility within Canada. It sounds ambitious, but in reality, it is far more limited. There are no binding timelines, no penalties for delays, no incentives for provinces to actually remove trade barriers and no framework for a blue seal licensing standard that would allow professionals such as engineers, nurses and skilled tradespeople to work across the country based on national credentials.
At committee, we heard from Catherine Swift, president of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada, who summed it up well: Canada has been talking about internal trade for three decades, report after report, announcement after announcement, but it is still not nearly enough meaningful action. The fear is that the bill would only add to that pile and it would become just another press release without a solid plan to move forward.
That is why Conservatives have been proposing a better way to provide financial incentives for provinces that eliminate barriers, which would be a win-win; it would boost GDP, increase revenues and allow provinces to reinvest in important infrastructure projects. The IMF has estimated that removing internal trade barriers could raise Canada's GDP by as much as 4%. That is real growth, real paycheques and real opportunity, but very little of that is in Bill C-5. Again, the bill does not do enough to seriously address the economic headwinds that Canada is facing.
Now I will go on to part 2 of the bill, the building Canada act. This section is supposed to fast-track major projects that are in the national interest, but instead of real reform, we get a selective shortcut. We get all the red tape, bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 remain in place, and there are no clear criteria for what makes a project eligible. There is no certainty for investors, just more discretion handed to the ministers who have failed to deliver time and time again.
Yes, Conservatives improved the bill at committee, but flaws remain. We heard from Dr. Exner-Pirot, director of natural resources, energy and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, at committee. She warned us very bluntly that global capital is mobile. Investors are not going to wait around for a country that takes years to approve a pipeline or transmission line. In fact, they are not waiting; they are going to the United States, they are going to Australia and they are going to Norway, to countries with the same environmental standards but faster, clearer and more reliable approval processes.
We cannot ignore the warning signs. Canada has dropped in global rankings for competitiveness. A lack of clarity, slow timelines and politicized approvals are driving investment away. Conservatives believe in a better path: one-and-done approvals, a national energy corridor and shovel-ready zones. We all want to see worthy projects proceed, not just the ones that are politically favourable that particular week or month.
We are in an era of fierce global competition, urgent infrastructure needs and historic opportunity. While the legislation sets a framework, there is more to be done. There needs to be a clear model for approvals, and impediments to approval need to be cleared, such as, again, Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the production cap, and the industrial carbon tax.
It is important that we step back for a moment and look at the bigger picture. Canada, in the past decade, has ranked dead last in the G7 for economic growth, and 80% to 90% of our energy exports still go to the United States at a discount. Our farmers, miners and manufacturers are boxed in by regulations that serve no one. As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce told us, internal trade barriers act like a self-imposed 21% tariff, and yet we wonder why productivity is stagnant, investment is down and young Canadians cannot find opportunities at home.
Meanwhile, Trump's tariffs are escalating. Our competitors are attracting investment while we are repelling it. The government's answer cannot be another layer of process and platitudes, more bureaucracy and empty promises while opportunity slips away. We are in a moment that calls for ambition, that calls for reform and that calls for leadership. Instead, the government gives us something that sounds good but fails when it meets the reality of the Canadian economy, and Bill C-5, despite the title, despite the spin, still does not do enough to change that.
With the final vote in the House expected shortly, Bill C-5 is poised to become law by Canada Day. Conservatives made it more transparent, more accountable and more secure. We stood up for taxpayers, we shut the back door to insider influence and we forced the government to answer for its overreach. Conservatives made Bill C-5 better, but many challenges remain. Canada is falling behind because we make it too hard to build, too hard to work across provinces and too hard to trade within our own borders. Canada has everything the world wants and needs; we need to address what is holding us back.
Bill C-5 takes a small step forward. Is it enough? No. Is it the right direction for a change? Yes, and that is why we will not hold up this modicum of progress. We are the party of building, and so we will not stop fighting for real change. We will hold the government to account for what gets done for the results. We will keep fighting for what really matters: paycheques, productivity, and a future that unleashes Canada's great potential for everyone.
Mr. Speaker, page 1 of the Liberal Party election platform made it very clear that we want to have one Canadian economy. The Prime Minister has delivered on that commitment to Canadians.
By July 1, because we will be passing the legislation in the next couple of hours, we will have an opportunity and a framework that are going to enable and complement things such as the first ministers' meeting that the Prime Minister had with all the premiers, the first ministers, and there were a lot of good discussions that took place. Premiers of all political stripes are on board. The national government needed to step up, and we have stepped up with a new Prime Minister and a new administration.
My question for the member is this: How would he reflect on the overall team Canada approach that was clearly demonstrated at the first ministers' meeting just two weeks ago?
Mr. Speaker, are we going to have free trade in Canada and the $200-billion opportunity by Canada Day? No, we are not. There is a framework, but there is a lot to do. We just heard the minister's speech, and a number of things are still going to happen in July, with a meeting of the minds and convening, which is something the Liberal government is very good at, but we are not seeing action.
If we want to talk about a team Canada approach, I would remind the member for Winnipeg North that the premier of my province, Premier Ford, has been one of the premiers who have called for the scrapping of Bill C-69, as I have indicated, which is one of the impediments to building things. It is going to stop them from building projects in Ontario as well.
Mr. Speaker, in Windsor West, we are proud of Trisha Haldar, a grade 8 student from Bellewood Public School who just won Canada's top science prize for inventing a tool to help families understand dangerous drug interactions. Her project was inspired by her love for her grandmother, and it is a reminder of how bright and capable young Canadians are.
Meanwhile, the government's Bill C-5 would bury billions in new spending with little transparency. As there is no budget being tabled, it would hike our national debt and there would be no meaningful investment in the next generation of innovators like Trisha.
If a 13-year-old in Windsor can solve real problems with a great science project, what is my colleague's view on the government's failure to table a budget that would help real Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, obviously, there are very bright people in Windsor and in southwestern Ontario. A 13-year-old has figured it out. It is a shame that this 13-year-old cannot have the future in Canada that she should be able to aspire to because of the policies of the last 10 years of the government.
The Liberals are not going to be tabling a budget this session, which is ending today. We are going to have to wait for the fall. No budget equals no plan. The man with the plan has not delivered a plan at all.
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a misunderstanding about what nation building is. In fact, this bill has been called a fast track to the Supreme Court, meaning no building of the economy and no new jobs.
I am wondering why the Conservatives are supporting a bill that is going to spend more time holding up projects in the courts than getting things done on the ground.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre was with us at committee and had a chance to ask questions of witnesses as well. I share some of the skepticism she has about some of the answers we received from ministers, for sure.
As I said, we believe Bill C-5 is a small step in the right direction, but there is still much to be desired. We did, of course, add amendments that added a number of pieces of legislation the government cannot circumvent. One of them was the Indian Act, and there were other things. Otherwise, the government would have been handed a completely blank cheque and an absurd amount of power to run roughshod over federal legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill C-5.
I would first like to thank my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for all the work he has done, despite the challenges posed by situation resulting from the gag order. He has worked with the Bloc Québécois as our constituents expect us to work in the House, that is, with the thoroughness and transparency.
Transparency is precisely one of the issues I would like to address today with regard to Bill C-5. In fact, there are two issues I would like to address: the fact that this bill would exempt proponents of major projects from laws and an ethical issue, which I will address in the second part of my speech.
Clearly, the Bloc Québécois does not support Bill C-5. I am going to repeat what some of my colleagues have said, because it is important. Imposing this gag order is one of the most serious attacks on democracy since the Emergency Measures Act, which replaced the War Measures Act. The government has decided to circumvent democracy.
No matter who was elected here, I do not believe that voters want to see their MP support a bill that seeks to circumvent the democratic process. I am not talking about the gag order here, but rather about the bill itself, which allows the democratic process to be circumvented and its means, powers and possibilities to be stripped. As I said already, once a project is designated in the national interest, its developer will be able to circumvent any federal statute or regulation. That is huge. The decision of what is in the national interest lies in the hands of one individual. However, I note in passing that “national interest” has not been defined yet. What does national interest mean? What falls in that murky category? This is, indeed, also a matter of murkiness.
Of course, now, we are trying to protect various statutes by proposing amendments to the bill. I myself tabled an amendment to exclude the Canada Labour Code from the list of statutes and regulations. I must say the list seemed infinite. It includes the Fisheries Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the marine mammal regulations, the port authorities operations regulations and more.
These are all statutes that we will be able to circumvent. Of course, "we" excludes the person speaking. However, these laws protect the population as a whole, be they Quebeckers or Canadians, by guaranteeing that projects respect the principle of the common good. Bill C-5 actually does away with those guarantees. These laws were duly voted on, considered and debated, yet we are being told that they basically have no purpose, because Bill C‑5 is above those laws. In fact, the expression I just used, "to be above the law", summarizes exactly, perhaps even to my surprise, what Bill C‑5 is proposing.
I would also like to point out that clause 21 remains, despite the Bloc Québécois's request to remove the schedule from the bill, which was rejected. Clause 21 allows the government, by a simple order in council, to exempt proponents from the application of any law, no matter which one. That is also very concerning. Federally regulated businesses have just been protected under the Official Languages Act. Just imagine the Income Tax Act or the Criminal Code. The entire text of the bill, including the schedules, allows for exempting major proponents from laws that have been duly passed by the House of Commons.
That is the first item I wanted to talk about. In my opinion, a law that supercedes all other laws leads to opaque and arbitrary decisions, which is unacceptable. That brings up the subject of ethics. What is opaque and arbitrary is the opposite of what is ethical and of what our constituents expect. What they want is transparency. What they want is accountability. What they want is to have a say. That is what democracy is all about.
That is not what is happening with Bill C‑5, however. In its present form, the bill allows the government to consider and evaluate the projects according to five evaluation criteria. One criterion is whether the project could “strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security”. The criterion of whether the project could “provide economic or other benefits to Canada” is very broad. Being feasible is also very broad. The criterion of whether the project considers “the interests of Indigenous peoples” theoretically protects the Indian Act, but what about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Considering interests is not at all prescriptive; it sounds optional. As for projects that “contribute to clean growth” and to meeting Canada's climate change objectives, it is very clear that the stated criteria or objectives are not necessarily the ones the government wants to apply. We all see how much backpedalling our theoretically new government is doing in that regard.
The minister can actually ignore those criteria entirely. It is like they are trying to convince us that we will be protected by guardrails of some kind, but the fact is, they do not even have to pay attention to those guardrails and that, too, is unacceptable. Once a project is designated as being in the national interest, the minister can issue approvals at every stage, and no one will be privy to the nature of the projects or the conditions they have to satisfy. After that, there is no turning back, which is unbelievable. Projects will be approved in advance behind closed doors, and the public will not know a thing. The decision will already be final. The government says that there can be consultations or discussions afterward, but the fact is, the decision will have already been made. I know this will not be the first time the government has held consultations after making decisions, but this is still a very big deal. The text of the bill is very clear. Consultation may happen, but whatever the government wants to do will be done. We will just have to live with the consequences of decisions made behind closed doors.
Closed doors, stupidity, selfishness and personal interests are things that humans are familiar with. When people make hasty decisions or buy shares in a company, for example, they tend to forget that, in fact, they we should be serving is the common interest, not their personal interests. I am not saying that that is necessarily what is happening, but it is a strong possibility. Everything is hidden. How can we know whether everything is being done properly and in accordance with the will of the people?
I will give one last example: the Brookfield issue. We know that the Prime Minister has a stake in Brookfield. I would like to point out that Brookfield owns railway lines, which are covered by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants, which are covered by Bill C‑5. Pipelines are covered by Bill C‑5. Companies that design, build and operate nuclear power plants are covered by Bill C‑5. The oil sands are covered by Bill C‑5. Port facilities are covered by Bill C‑5. In my opinion, while I am not saying that there is a conflict of interest, there is at the very least an appearance of a potential ethical breach. Bill C‑5 opens the door wide to this type of situation, which the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes.
I touched on only two things in my speech, but they are two things that I am sure the people in my riding and the people of Quebec would disagree with. The government's lack of transparency and decision to grant itself all the powers without an informed debate and vote are unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, less than two months ago, we received a clear mandate in the last election. One of the challenges is putting some major projects on the table. The Prime Minister has met with the premiers of the provinces and territories. The goal is to put major projects on the table.
In Quebec, there is a lot of talk about Hydro-Québec, connectivity and connecting Quebec with Newfoundland and Labrador. If I am not mistaken, the Hydro-Québec project will be very close to my colleague's riding. I think that it would have a significant positive economic impact.
I would like to know how my colleague will support the bill. She said earlier that she wanted to support the people, and she talked about how she would vote given that she represents her constituents.
Mr. Speaker, the north shore produces more electricity than any other administrative region in Quebec and, I believe, more than any other place in Canada.
However, the Government of Quebec has never received a penny from the federal government for Hydro-Québec. We never needed federal government help for that, not then or now. I think that my riding is doing just fine without federal involvement in Hydro-Québec. We do not need Bill C‑5 to build hydroelectric plants.
If the government really wants to look into what goes on in my neck of the woods, I would point out that some people in my riding live in areas where there are no roads, no docks, no air transportation and no bridges for getting home. They live on islands, and they are isolated. It would be an excellent idea to look into that.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member had a great speech, and she has concerns, which I share with her, concerning transparency. We know that there are some issues with the Prime Minister with regard to his disclosure and the conflict of interest reports.
I am just wondering what her constituents think about the lack of transparency from the government. We know that there will not even be a public list of projects that are in the national interest.
How can she go back to her constituents to say that the government is listening to the people when she knows full well that there is no transparency?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the government is not being transparent but, unless I am mistaken, I believe that my colleague's party wishes to vote in favour of the bill. To me, that is one and the same. It does not matter which side someone is on if everyone votes the same way and there is no transparency. I see no difference there.
I would like to ask my colleague the same question. Why is he voting in favour of the bill if he believes there is no transparency?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is always very thoughtful, careful and professional.
I would like her, as the Bloc Québécois critic for labour, to say a few words about the fact that the government, in its original proposal, did not exempt the Canada Labour Code from the application of the bill. The work of the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, with the support of my colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, ensured that an amendment was proposed to exclude the Canada Labour Code from the bill.
According to her, why did the government keep it in and wait for us to propose an amendment?
Why did it not occur to the government that it should not touch this legislation?
Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate my colleague's thoroughness and the relevance of her comments.
I would respond that that question also occurred to me. Why did the government forget? Why did it make such a list, to which nearly any law could be added because of the possibilities that are included in the bill itself?
I think it was written quickly. They also want the House to pass it quickly and they do not want to consult anyone. I am proud that the Bloc Québécois has been able to defend certain aspects. For example, we talked about the Canada Labour Code because the unions themselves wondered about it. I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that the unions support it, but the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, came out and said no, it did not support the bill.
People need to be consulted. The government should not be imposing closure.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about the one Canadian economy act, which seeks to build a stronger, more competitive and more resilient Canadian economy. I am also here to talk about our intention to identify, defend and complete projects of national interest for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I will also talk about the measures to eliminate trade barriers in order to unlock our full economic potential and make Canada stronger both nationally and internationally.
These measures were at the heart of the commitment we made to Canadians during the election. We were clear and transparent. In our platform, we talked about creating one Canadian economy, not 13. To do that, we have to start by getting rid of internal trade barriers. During the election campaign, we also talked about implementing projects of national interest.
Over the past few days, I have been a little taken aback to hear opposition members express their surprise at what Bill C‑5 contains. Our intentions were clear, written down in black and white. During the election campaign and afterward, we said time and again that we wanted to strengthen and unify the Canadian economy. Over 8.5 million people across the country voted for our ambitious plan to strengthen and unify the Canadian economy. That is the most votes any political party has ever received in a Canadian federal election.
What comes as a bit of a surprise to my opposition colleagues is how quickly we are moving to meet Canadians' expectations. After only four weeks in the House, we have put in place concrete measures, through Bill C‑5, to strengthen internal trade and make it easier to carry out major national interest projects. This is on top of other measures, including a tax cut for Canadian families and historic investments in defence. I think that what surprises the opposition even more is our determination and our ability to take concrete measures to strengthen our economy and deliver on our commitment to the Canadian people.
A lot of the response to Bill C‑5 has been very positive. For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has stated that now is the time for bold action to ensure we stop holding up nation-building projects. I myself organized a meeting with the chambers of commerce in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, and I can say that people are very interested in the various legislative measures we have introduced over the past month here in Ottawa.
I understand their enthusiasm, because this is a hinge moment in our nation's history. The world is changing rapidly. The rules of the global economy are being rewritten, particularly because of the tariffs and disruptive trade actions coming out of the United States. We did not ask for a trade war, but one thing has become clear: We will do whatever it takes to build long-term prosperity for Canadians, and we will do it on our own terms. We can no longer take stability and access to global markets for granted. In order to secure good jobs for workers, improve our standard of living and keep life affordable, we need to quickly strengthen our economic foundations here at home. It is important to understand that the best way to make life more affordable for Canadians is to get to work building a strong Canadian economy that can sustain programs that save families thousands of dollars a year.
Building a strong economy means unlocking our country's full potential and getting past the red tape and duplication that have held us back for too long. It is time to transform the way we do business as a nation. Bill C‑5 lays out our government's clear intention to proactively identify and advance projects in the national interest that will propel Canada into the next era. These projects will stimulate economic growth, strengthen energy security and supply chains and create long-term sustainable jobs. Once we determine that a project is in the national interest, it will go ahead right away, not 10 years from now. There will be a one-and-done federal approval process. The current system of overlapping barriers and reviews will be replaced with a clear path forward.
We urgently need to do things quickly, but there is more to it than that. We also need to demonstrate clarity, confidence and Canadian leadership on the world stage. We need to send a clear signal to investors that Canada is committed to seeing projects through to completion. That is why our government will set up a new federal major projects office, which will serve as a single window for proponents and partners, consolidating work that was once done by several organizations.
The new major federal project office will act like the biggest infrastructure hub in Canada, a hub to guide every project with clarity, reliability and transparency through the federal process. Instead of getting lost in a government maze, developers will have a single point of contact tasked with reporting to Canadians on the progress made. This will make the “one project, one assessment” approach real—another commitment that was at the heart of what we promised to Canadians during the last election. That means fewer administrative formalities, more certainty and better results, not just for investors, but also for workers, communities, indigenous peoples and the environment.
The time of endless debate on determining whether projects should get built is behind us. For the projects that meet our strict criteria, the question instead will be: How are we going to build and how fast can we unlock the benefits for Canadians?
Thanks to this bill, once a project is declared in the national interest, we will provide a single, consolidated document on the federal conditions that will replace years of work on permits, reviews and regulatory uncertainty. That is what the industry, developers and the provinces asked us for. That is what this moment calls for. This will be accompanied by a clear consultation that the indigenous peoples will participate in and a commitment to always protect our natural environment.
No other G7 country is progressing as decisively as Canada. Bill C-5 marks the end of a culture of delay. We are a government that is defined by living up to expectations. As a new member, I am proud to be part of this new government led by our new Prime Minister.
Let me be clear. Our determination to build does not mean abandoning our values—quite the opposite. In fact, our vision can only succeed if it reflects those values. I am thinking of values such as partnership with indigenous peoples, respect for the environment and responsible stewardship for future generations. Every project of national interest will involve significant consultation with indigenous communities. This is the only way to build with legitimacy and unlock generational economic opportunities that are inclusive and sustainable. We have already committed—not just with words, but with tangible policies—to economic reconciliation, including doubling funding for the indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion. It supports indigenous ownership and ensures that the prosperity generated by nation-building projects can also benefit indigenous communities today and for the long term.
When it comes to protecting the environment, Bill C-5 does not undermine Canada's world-class protections. It asks a simple question: How do we build big projects responsibly? From consultation requirements to robust permit conditions to ambitious climate goals, our projects will set the new global standard for responsible development.
We are not here to manage the decline. That is not how we do things in Canada. We are here to seize opportunities. We are here to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, thanks to this bill. My conversations with my constituents and with Canadians across the country have led me to believe there is no challenge Canadians cannot overcome if we work together, as one team, one economy, in one big, united country.
The one Canadian economy bill and its approach of developing projects of national interest are an invitation to rebuild with intention, pride and hope. Let us seize this moment. Let us rise to the expectations of this generation and leave an even better country for the next. Let us work together to build a strong Canada.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we are happy when any project finally gets built in this country, after 10 years of the Liberal government trying to stop everything, but this is an example of the Liberal government causing problems and creating a new program to try to fix them.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we were elected with a clear mandate in the last election. It is a mandate to achieve great things, to be bold and ambitious in responding to the challenges of our time. Bill C-5 is in keeping with this spirit.
With Bill C-5, we will be able to move forward more quickly on projects of national interest. This is consistent with the “one project, one review” approach. We understand that we must act now to strengthen the Canadian economy, unify it to create good jobs, stimulate the economy and make Canada's economy the strongest in the G7.
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the passionate speech from my colleague across the aisle, and I congratulate him as he is just starting out as a new member of the House.
He just mentioned the “one project, one assessment” approach on environmental matters.
Today, the Premier of Quebec reiterated to the Prime Minister of Canada that projects must be determined based on Quebec's recommendations and that the only environmental assessment must be Quebec's assessment.
What does my colleague think of what the Quebec premier is calling for?
Mr. Speaker, the government will have a legal obligation to act in accordance with the purpose of the act and to expedite projects of national interest, while maintaining rigorous environmental standards and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples.
Projects that will be subject to an impact assessment will be reviewed by existing regulatory agencies to identify the conditions necessary to protect Canadians and the environment. The designated minister must consult with other relevant ministers as well as provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to ensure that these conditions are sufficient.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his lively and vibrant speech.
Since my colleague is from New Brunswick, I would like to know what he thinks about this. One of the bill's goals is to remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility.
What does his riding in New Brunswick expect to gain from the major change that this bill is expected to bring?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.
I consulted the chambers of commerce in my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, and I talked with people. We clearly want less red tape. We want to facilitate internal trade, especially given the uncertainty surrounding trade with the United States. My riding has a long border with our southern neighbour and five ports of entry. Our economy is quite heavily integrated with the U.S. economy.
A bill like this one is very appealing to business owners in my riding. It facilitates access to markets in other Canadian provinces and makes it easer for them to sell their products and services.
It is certainly being very well received and my region, like many others across the country, expects it to generate significant economic benefits.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the Liberal culture of delay. In my experience, it takes a long time to change a culture. It takes time. It takes more than words, spoken or written. Culture changes through action.
What action are you going to take? It takes time.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 is a concrete example. It has been four weeks, and we are removing internal trade barriers and strengthening Canada's economy through projects of national interest. We have passed a tax cut for the middle class and made historic investments in defence.
Clearly, our new government, led by our new Prime Minister, is action-oriented and practical. We want to meet Canadians' expectations.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to represent the wonderful people of Long Range Mountains.
I have sat in the House and listened carefully to many of the debates on Bill C-5.
Let me begin by stating clearly that, of course, Conservatives support natural resource development. We always have. For nearly a decade, Conservatives have been pressing the Liberal government to repeal the legislation that has been blocking responsible development in regions right across the country.
We know that Canadians are living through deep economic uncertainty, and they are looking for a serious plan that would give that certainty, but they also want to create competitiveness in the private sector and have a plan that creates jobs, attracts investment and delivers hope for the future. The building Canada act is the government's answer to this moment.
As Conservatives, we agree with building Canada and creating growth in our economy. In fact, I campaigned on it. After close to 50 years, a traditionally Liberal riding flipped. That was because the people of Long Range Mountains recognized that, while we have a province rich in natural resources, we also have some of the worst economic outcomes in the country. They believed that a Conservative government would unlock the opportunities in their communities.
We are thankful that the Liberals have finally recognized that this is extremely important to Canada and Canadians, but unfortunately, this plan would give way too much power to politicians to pick and choose projects. Thankfully, our amendments have decreased some opportunity for Liberal corruption, but despite having the most resources per capita of any country, our economy has had the worst economic growth in the G7, and we have become more dependent on the United States because of Liberal laws that have blocked resource development.
Canada's unemployment rate in May was at its highest level in over eight years, excluding the pandemic. Youth unemployment has skyrocketed, and Canadians cannot afford groceries. Quite simply, we are not meeting our potential, and the legislation before us is supposed to be a part of charting a course for Canada's economy and our economic future. Unfortunately, this legislation does not give the confidence to workers, businesses or investors that we need in this situation.
What is deeply concerning is the method by which the projects of natural interest get to be selected or, thereafter, taken off the list. The legislation would give sweeping power to cabinet to pick winners and losers behind closed doors. Once a project is declared a national interest project and added to schedule 1, all required federal authorizations are automatically rubber-stamped, but the Liberals can thereafter remove them from the list. This is not reforming the current system. It is a power grab, and it is political favouritism.
In addition, the creation of the bill by the Liberals is effectively admitting what Canadians already know, which is that their own laws have paralyzed our ability to build and grow. Rather than fix the broken system and get rid of the laws that prevent us from developing our natural resources, like repealing Bill C-69, the energy cap and the industrial carbon tax, they are creating an exclusive shortcut for a select few based on political convenience. The bill trades fairness and long-term certainty for more centralization and more Liberal control. Canadians deserve better.
Conservatives want to protect Canadians from government corruption while also developing our natural resources and unlocking our immense potential, which means stopping Liberal ministers from circumventing conflict-of-interest laws. Thankfully, Conservatives have added amendments that would remove this ability. However, we should allow the private sector to drive innovation and growth, but the Liberal government insists on picking winners and losers. I ask why this is. Instead, and I say this once again, it could simply repeal the bad policies that block projects. What about all of the major resource and infrastructure projects, which are already stuck in the federal system, that may not be deemed national interest projects? These are all with the growth of the Canadian economy, jobs and investment on the line. Where is the fast track for them?
In Newfoundland and Labrador, there are projects caught on the other side of federal red tape and regulatory paralysis. These projects will grow local economies and provide growth and financial prosperity for rural communities in my riding. Where is the fast track for them?
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have wanted to see our natural gas sector developed for years. Recently, the province released its assessments on natural gas resources, highlighting that it could drive economic growth. However, we know the Liberals have driven away proponents looking to develop this resource, not because it was not viable but because the federal process dragged on so long that they simply just walked away.
On this point, everyone will remember the Liberals' 2022 announcement with the German chancellor, when Canada was asked directly to help Europe reduce its reliance on Russian gas. The chancellor actually visited my riding, and he made it clear that Europe would really like Canada to export more LNG. Our allies were looking to us for a reliable, democratic energy supply. Newfoundland and Labrador could have been a part of this opportunity, but instead of answering that call, the Liberals claimed there was no business case for Canadian LNG.
Under the legislation as it stands right now, all of the same Liberal ministers will get to choose which projects get hand-picked and fast-tracked. Furthermore, in that moment, with a great opportunity for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the government pivoted to hydrogen. Now, several of these projects are trying to launch wind hydrogen operations in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberals picked projects with promises of wind-powered hydrogen exports, new infrastructure and thousands of jobs. However, like so many other Liberal announcements, what was promised with cameras rolling is now wrapped in all kinds of uncertainty.
Recently, it was revealed that Newfoundland and Labrador is owed millions of dollars in unpaid fees from green energy companies, a development that raises serious questions about the financial viability of these projects and whether the multi-billion dollar investments touted by the government will ever materialize. Some owe a collective $13.7 million in fees due in 2024 for the use of Crown land.
Politicians got carried away with announcements and hand-picked projects, but the real tragedy is that Newfoundland and Labrador missed out on an opportunity to provide Canadian LNG because someone in Ottawa thought that they knew best. This is a perfect example of why top-down decision-making does not work. It is not just about energy policy; it is about trust and credibility.
There are lots of projects that the Liberal government has failed to get built. When the Liberals say they are creating a new fast-track process under Bill C-5 for a select few national interest projects, why are the ones we already have across this country stuck in limbo? Why do Liberal cabinet ministers get to decide what is on the list and what is not? Jobs are being lost to delays, while cabinet gives itself the power to pick favourites. Since the government has admitted that its own legislation has created this problem, and it is now trying to bypass it with shortcuts, does it not just make more sense to repeal the legislation?
If this is truly a new government, as the Prime Minister and all his front bench have claimed, then they should prove it to Canadians by repealing Bill C-69, removing the industrial carbon tax and scrapping the emissions cap. These measures would restore certainty and ramp up our economy, including our rural communities, so we can become a self-reliant, sovereign and independent country.
In the meantime, as Conservatives, we intend to hold the government to account on this legislation to be sure Canadians are protected against Liberal corruption.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to a new government, and it is, in fact, a new government administration with a new Prime Minister.
We have seen tangible actions since April 28, just a number of weeks ago. The Prime Minister, working alongside the Liberal caucus, presented legislative initiatives, such as the one that we are debating today, which was on page 1 of the election platform. We are checking it off. It will, in fact, pass. The Prime Minister has already met with the first ministers. He has met with the G7 countries. We have a very proactive Prime Minister, fixated on Canada's economy and making it the strongest in the G7.
My question for the member is, does she not believe in a team Canada approach?
Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with all the Liberal government touts. I have been hearing, over and again, the Liberal talking points for days.
My point is that this top-down approach of cabinet ministers sitting in ivory towers in Ottawa has proven to not be effective at getting our natural resources developed. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have suffered immensely as a result of this approach by government deciding it knows best. This is the problem: the arrogance and the idea that it knows best and it touts itself. Meanwhile, people are out of work, out of money and out of time. It is time to get to work.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member. She is very critical of the Liberal government. She has a lot to say. She is highly critical of it, so what I do not understand is why she voted in favour of time allocation to pass Bill C‑5 quickly, with no debate, with no experts, with nothing.
She criticizes it, but what she is not saying out loud is that she is happy with Bill C‑5. The Liberals have served up a nice little bill that she herself would probably have liked to introduce.
Why did she agree to pass a bill without debate?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we believe in moving the economy and natural resource development forward. We do not want to be seen as standing in the way. Some development is better than no development, but we would rather see the antidevelopment legislation repealed. That is our suggestion to government.
Mr. Speaker, when I was knocking on doors in Newfoundland and Labrador, it was very common for Canadians to say they were not voting because all politicians are corrupt.
I heard my fellow colleague mention corruption. I wonder if she may see the bill, Bill C-5, as perhaps leading to more corruption.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador. Our ridings share a lot of commonalities, and we hear a lot of the same things at the doors. It is absolutely true what he is saying. People feel that Ottawa is so far away that politicians are completely out of touch, and they just do not trust them.
My concern is that we are continuing in the same vein and giving the Liberals way too much power to make decisions that are not in the best interests of Canadians or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it has been less than two months since the election.
What parts of this bill will please the people my colleague met while going door to door?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my colleague was listening throughout my speech, but several times I made a plea to the government to repeal the antidevelopment legislation. That is what would make the people of my riding happy.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am almost one of the last to speak before the final passage of this bill. Numerous questions remain unanswered, which is normal, because there has been limited debate on this bill. We have heard from almost no witnesses and we did not have the opportunity to move many amendments. This bill was tabled in a rush to respond to the tariff crisis. I will say right off the bat that I am not an engineer. I am a social worker and manager; I managed shelter beds. However, I must admit that I fail to understand how this bill responds to the tariff crisis.
It is strange because Mr. Legault, the Premier of Quebec, spoke with the Prime Minister of Canada today and asked him to act quickly to support the sectors that have been affected by the U.S. tariffs for a few weeks now. Those include the aluminum and steel sectors, but also the forestry sector, which is not mentioned much on the other side of the House. The Liberals have trouble saying “forest” and “forestry industry”.
Quebec's premier told the Prime Minister of Canada today that something had to be done for Quebec's regions, where the forestry industry creates good jobs. The sector is really struggling. I do not understand what the bill we are debating will change or improve for people in Quebec's forestry, aluminum and steel sectors.
I think it is an excuse to act quickly, justify the urgency and grab powers that are excessive and akin to those in the Emergencies Act. There is nothing to justify this urgency. There is nothing to justify botching the debate on this bill, which literally transforms the way of doing business and reflects the Liberals' affront to democracy. After a short four weeks of work and after the prorogation of Parliament, when we had not sat since December, the first thing the government did was introduce a bill that we did not even have the opportunity to debate. We cannot get on board with that.
I may be a bit suspicious, but how does it look when a bill is rushed through right before summer, when people are spending more time grilling than watching television? It certainly limits exposure to criticism. Nobody will make the Liberals justify their actions. That goes double for the Conservatives, because they are complicit.
In the last Parliament, our Conservative colleagues called us the “Liberal Bloc”, but nothing beats the Liberal-Conservative alliance. They are thick as thieves. I saw them all smiling and having fun during the vote earlier. Folks on both sides of the House are happy. At last, they can impose their vision, ignore laws and trample on provincial jurisdiction. No obstacles will stand in their way. Gone is the need for accountability, transparency or consultation with indigenous nations, Métis peoples and the territories. This is unprecedented, yet no one seems upset about it.
Only Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party members dared to stand up and cry foul. I am a down-to-earth person. I am all about facts, and I like to do the research, but I have failed to find an answer to the question I asked off the top. I think we are being scammed. They want us to believe there is an emergency, but it does not justify this bill.
I want to point out that the Premier of Quebec said something to the Prime Minister of Canada. I would like to quote him, because these are his words, not an interpretation. Our premier said:
However, I pointed out that projects on our territory must be identified based to our recommendations, and the environmental assessment must be performed by our government.
This morning, I was listening to the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, who did not seem to acknowledge that we were talking about a Quebec environmental assessment, saying it was probably going to be Canada's environmental assessment.
I think it is pretty clear to everyone what is going on.
We disagree with the second part of the bill because these discretionary powers, the ability to govern by decree without consultation, which the government is proposing in collusion with the Conservatives to circumvent who knows how many laws, are beyond the pale. We are talking about laws that were passed because of a need to protect species at risk and our water. These laws serve a purpose. After all, they were passed here, in the House of Commons. They were passed because of abuses, because nature, biodiversity and the environment were not being respected. People went too far. That is why laws were passed.
This bill proposes to suspend them. The government wants to suspend these laws for any project deemed to be in the national interest, but I cannot find a definition of that in the bill. The words “national interest project” appear 23 times, but I cannot find a definition. I cannot find it because it does not exist. It exists only in the mind of the minister who will decide whether a particular project is in the national interest. This is serious.
The people across the floor have the audacity to say that this will boost the economy and build a stronger Canada. One thing is certain. Lawyers are going to make money. This bill will not survive. It will be challenged by civil society groups, by indigenous nations, perhaps even by a province. That is because it makes no sense. It makes no sense, especially considering how it was passed, without democratic debate, without consulting citizens, without consulting scientists. This is serious.
I was elected in 2006. I have been a member of Parliament for almost 12 years. This is the first time I have experienced a situation like this. This is the first time I have seen such disrespect for this democratic institution, the Parliament of Canada. When something like this is done in a hurry and pushed through, I always wonder who benefits. Who stands to gain from this?
I wonder about our Prime Minister's transparency. We know that Brookfield owns railways, a sector that will be impacted by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants, which will be impacted by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns pipelines and even a company that builds and operates nuclear power plants, which will also be impacted by Bill C‑5.
By refusing to disclose his financial situation, is our Prime Minister not leaving himself open to the appearance of a conflict of interest?
Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had many opportunities to work with my colleague, but I think she is well liked here in Parliament. I think she can appreciate that using a word like “scammed” is a bit of an exaggeration.
I would like her to consider the fact that Canadians asked us to do this. This is the mandate that Canadians sent us here to carry out. We won 44 seats in Quebec because Quebeckers also want us to build an economy that works for all Canadians. I am sure they would not be pleased to hear the word “scammed” being used in the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I highly doubt that Quebeckers voted for the Liberals so they could implement the Conservative agenda. Quebeckers voted for the Liberals because they were afraid of the Conservative leader, Mr. Poilievre, and they were afraid of Trump. They felt safe with the current Prime Minister.
However, they never voted to be handed a bill that will impose a pipeline and other unwanted projects on Quebec, with no prior discussion about choice or environmental assessments.
I highly doubt that is what Quebeckers chose.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear, I think it goes without saying that we do not share the same opinion on this issue.
We understand the Bloc Québécois does not want projects to be fast-tracked, particularly projects allowing for a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, liquefied natural gas projects and pipelines.
There is one thing, however, on which I agree with my colleague, and that is the lack of transparency by the Prime Minister. She talked about it at the end of her speech. It is rather troubling. We agreed on some amendments with the Bloc Québécois to ensure the government would have to comply with ethics laws.
I would like my colleague to say a few words herself about this lack of transparency and the current Prime Minister's many conflicts of interest.
Mr. Speaker, that would deserve a long answer, but I would like to tell my colleague that we agreed on a few important amendments: removing the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Indian Act so that they are excluded from Bill C‑5. However, without the participation of the Bloc Québécois or the NDP, with the support of these Conservative amendments, this was not part of the original bill.
What worries me, and I will say this sincerely, is that there was an amendment that was rejected by both sides, the Conservatives and the Liberals. It was the one that made it clear that provinces and indigenous nations had to be consulted before projects were approved. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted against that. I do not call that being in agreement.
If I may, we agree on the first part of the bill. We are pleased that it was split, because there are benefits, in part 1, to eliminating interprovincial barriers, especially for dairy farmers and slaughterhouses.
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague. She said it; she is a pragmatist.
Someone said earlier that Quebeckers had voted for a Liberal government. I would like to hear her opinion on the fact that Quebeckers may have voted against themselves. Proposed section 7 states, “Before recommending that an order be made...the Minister must consult”, if he considers it appropriate, with indigenous peoples and the provinces and territories, for example.
The minister will consult if he thinks it is worthwhile. In my opinion, that is not respecting the provinces.
I would like to know if my colleague thinks that is what Quebeckers voted for.
Mr. Speaker, obviously not.
If I do so say myself, Quebeckers will never agree to a pipeline running through their territory without first being consulted and without an assessment by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. Not a chance.
I will say quite frankly that all members of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party will fight, to the death, any project of that nature.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, over the last short while, because, of course, we were given very little time, I have expressed very serious concerns about Bill C-5 as it relates to the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples, the protection of our environment, and workers' rights. I would like to thank my very brilliant colleague, the member for Vancouver East, for helping us split the bill to ensure that the Liberals and the Conservatives cannot hide behind interprovincial trade barriers to violate indigenous rights and accelerate the climate emergency.
In spite of the amendments, my concerns remain. The building Canada act constitutes a clear breach and violation of indigenous rights under the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Yesterday, in his press conference, the Prime Minister insisted that indigenous peoples are “at the heart” of Bill C-5. In a way, he is correct. The violation of the rights of indigenous peoples is indeed at the heart of this bill, and indigenous leaders who travelled to the Hill this week have confirmed this loud and clear.
In response to questions both at committee and in the House, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations failed repeatedly to provide clear answers to the serious concerns raised by indigenous people and leaders. Bill C-5 would have serious and far-reaching implications, as it would allow ministers and the Governor in Council to determine what indigenous rights “may be adversely affected” or what will “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”. However, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations seems content to simply state that section 35 rights of the Constitution Act of 1982 are mentioned in certain provisions of the bill, or that her government will establish a $40-million advisory circle for what she characterized as “guidance”.
As legislators, we are guided by the rule of law. We are guided by the Constitution and treaties, and for the last 150 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has been providing clear guidance with respect to aboriginal rights and treaty rights.
Furthermore, Bill C-15 requires that the government must ensure that all laws of this Parliament are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 19 of UNDRIP reads, “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples...in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”
I asked the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations at committee if this obligation was respected. Her response was no. Why? It is because Bill C-5 was, in her words, an “accelerated” process. The minister likes to point out that section 35 rights are mentioned in Bill C-5 and will be upheld, but always remains unconvincingly vague about how her government will achieve that. Allow me to provide just one example around modern land claims agreements.
Modern land claims agreements, considered as treaties under subsection 35(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982, contain distinct environmental and review processes in which the indigenous signatories have a direct involvement and participation in decision-making and appointments. These processes would be replaced by ministers and cabinet under Bill C-5. That constitutes a substantial amendment to these treaties and agreements. This normally and legally requires the consent of indigenous signatories. Consent has not been obtained from indigenous peoples to make these substantial changes.
The grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, in his correspondence with the government, correctly reminds us that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is a modern treaty within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution. As such, it has a constitutional status that prevails over any inconsistent legislation. Consequently, Grand Chief Wapachee has specifically proposed the following, and I quote: That the proposed building Canada act expressly provide that it shall not apply to any project to be carried out, in whole or in part, in the territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
This is just one example of many that compels indigenous leaders to strongly believe that Bill C-5 has the very real potential to lead us all to the courts, with the equally real risk of further delays and job losses. We are not building a strong economy. We are building cases for the Supreme Court of Canada. It is the kind of legislative behaviour that has resulted in the federal government spending between $500 million and $1 billion annually fighting indigenous peoples' rights and status in courts.
Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler claimed, “If you pass this Bill C-5 it will be a long hot summer.... We will not sit idly by and watch any government whether it's Ontario or Canada...come to our territory and take...whatever they want because it is ours.”
It is not just the rights of indigenous peoples that are being violated. The building Canada act risks eroding workers' rights, giving the minister the ability to bypass critical legislation protecting workers and eroding standards surrounding health and safety. Even beyond these glaring attacks on workers, Bill C-5 would also be a job killer since the government failed to undertake the necessary consultations and fulfill its constitutional obligations, meaning the legislation would inevitably get tied up in the courts, stalling any sort of economic growth.
Beyond these issues, countless environmental organizations have warned that Bill C-5 would accelerate the climate emergency, placing countless people across Canada at risk. In fact, one in four Canadians is suffering the adverse health impacts resulting from the climate emergency. Ecojustice says the bill gives “sweeping power for the Prime Minister and his cabinet to exempt major projects from Canada’s most important federal health, safety, and environmental laws” and that it encourages “backroom politicking and closed-door negotiating with powerful corporations.”
Right now, half our country is literally on fire. The health of one in four Canadians is being impacted by extreme weather events, and these events will only get worse, as we know. Weakening environmental standards will only make this worse in the future. Nobody voted for an undemocratic concentration of power, violations of indigenous peoples' constitutional rights, environmental degradation or attacks on workers.
The Liberals, supported by the Conservatives, are holding our country hostage to prioritize big corporations' interest over everything else. We urge the government to slow down, to reflect and to not let the bill go through in its current form. We urge the government to honour its obligation to obtain free, prior and informed consent and to significantly amend the bill to uphold constitutional obligations.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the approach that the NDP has chosen to take on Bill C-5. The member and I both represent Winnipeg ridings. Both of us understand what Canadians, and Winnipeggers in particular, want to see. They are very much concerned about the economy. They are concerned about jobs. They like the aspect of having one Canada economy.
We have Premier Wab Kinew, who understands that, has been working with other provincial jurisdictions and participated in the first minister's conference that was hosted by the Prime Minister. There is a great team approach, yet we have the NDP playing around. It is just becoming more and more isolated and irrelevant to the whole debate.
Why does the member not recognize what the people of Winnipeg, and Canada, said during the last election? They want a one Canada economy.
Mr. Speaker, thank goodness for the member for Vancouver East for splitting the bill. The NDP does support removing interprovincial trade barriers and will be voting in favour of that part of the bill.
What we will not vote in favour of is violating constitutional rights, violating the section 35 rights of indigenous people, violating section 35(3) constitutional obligations, violating UNDRIP, violating environmental standards and violating the health and safety of workers. We will be proudly voting against this nation-building scheme that is going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent and heartfelt speech. We hope that it will open the minds of some members in the House.
I would like her to comment on the following. Does she think that this bill is consistent with the reconciliation movement that we have been pursuing with indigenous peoples for several years now? Does it fit in with that, or does it take us in a completely different direction?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just asked me a question. He represented, up until recently, a part of Winnipeg with the highest number of kids in care. Indigenous people are very supportive of building a strong economy. Indigenous leaders, in fact, have said we are not against it. What we are against is the violation of our constitutionally enshrined rights.
This is going to put us decades backwards. Any strides we have made in terms of reconciliation, we are going to lose if the Liberals and the Conservatives continue to team up and pass this bill. What is it going to look like? I was around during Idle No More. This is going to be Idle No More 2.0 because we will not sit idly by while our rights are being violated.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ever-diligent and vociferous attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and holding the government to account. The government, and particularly the member for Winnipeg North, seems to claim that under this bill, part 2 of the bill, it actually respects indigenous rights through its consultation provisions. The Liberals seem to be oblivious about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the consultation requirements stipulated in that.
I wonder if the member can enlighten, particularly, the member for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Speaker, I find it quite colonial with the member for Winnipeg North, particularly because indigenous peoples and nations from across this country have been very clear that the government has not fulfilled its duty of free, prior and informed consent. Organizations including AFN, ITK, NAN and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs have come forward and called out the government. They have not received—
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that we use parliamentary language. Calling another member of Parliament any name is not accepted, so maybe the member could retract that.
I would ask all colleagues to be judicious in their language, and if the member would be willing to retract the one offending word, we can carry on.
Mr. Speaker, I will not retract the word, calling the government “colonial”. I will not.
An hon member: Oh, oh!
Leah Gazan: I said his words were, his approach, and I—
The time has now expired for that. I will take it under advisement. I thank the member for London West. We will take it under advisement. We will review the blues and get back to the House.
We are now resuming debate.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Mr. Speaker, I will recognize the territory from which I speak today: I am at the annual general meeting of Friends of Nature, a wonderful small group in Nova Scotia on the territory of the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy. When I accepted the invitation, I foolishly thought we would be having an election on the fixed election date, but here we are on June 20, the last day of the very short session of the current Parliament following the election, under a new government.
I know it is a new government, because I do not think this could have happened under any other government. This is called the new government's honeymoon period. I used to think, I like to think, that in honeymoon periods, acts were consensual. This is anything but consensual, but Bill C-5 is before us now for its final vote.
I want to take a moment, if it is all right, to say that I do appreciate the Speaker's ruling earlier today that we will vote on part 1 and part 2 separately. I want to make it clear that the Greens definitely support bringing down interprovincial trade barriers. We desperately want to see a national approach that makes Canada at least as co-operative and effective between and among different jurisdictions as is the European Union, which deals with separate nation-states, many of which were certainly in the oral history of my childhood from parents who lived through the Depression and the Second World War. We certainly knew countries that now co-operate fully in the European Union were, a short time ago, relatively speaking, at war with each other.
Here we are in Canada, and we have less co-operation. The European Union, for instance, has a viable electricity grid that works across all its jurisdictions. It was able, after Putin's invasion of Ukraine, within months, to plug Ukraine into the EU electricity grid. We do not have one in Canada that we can plug into. The province of Nova Scotia has very, very high utility rates, and it stills burn coal for electricity, which other provinces have ceased to do. It could buy everything it needs from Hydro-Québec if only we had the interties to have a Canadian electricity grid. It has been something that hurts our economy and certainly hurts our businesses and many sectors.
We do not act like a country, but worse than that, we often do not think like a country, so I was very excited to hear the new Prime Minister's commitment to bring down interprovincial trade barriers. We certainly also need labour mobility; we need to recognize it across provinces, and that means working with many regulatory bodies. For instance, for doctors, we need to deal with the appropriate medical societies within each province to make sure the health care professionals we so desperately need can be recognized more quickly.
It is an awful shame, then, that I find I have to vote against part 1, and that is because of concerns raised to me directly by the Canadian Cancer Society with the way the bill is drafted with respect to the way a recognized standard at a provincial level could be recognized and could replace a stronger standard at the federal level. Had the bill not had the programming motion that pushed it through before anyone could think twice, I think that could have been fixed quite easily.
Most legislation like this would include a carve-out, an exemption, for health and environmental protections, but we were too busy. The Prime Minister and his government were in too big a rush. I question why that would be. It certainly could have been fixed easily. I cannot vote for it as it now stands.
I do not want to see another Walkerton in Canada, and I do not want to see what happened in England when Maggie Thatcher got rid of unnecessary regulations: the spread of mad cow disease. We really do not know the cost of getting rid of valuable regulations until we are dealing with a crisis. Many regulations can be removed. Much red tape is in our way, but we need to look before we leap. The bill is all about leaping before we look, and definitely that is the case in the “build Canada fast” section, the identification of projects in the national interest.
[Translation]
That is the key question. What is a project of national interest? How do we determine which projects are truly in the best interests of all nations in Canada? How do we find the common destiny of all provinces, territories and indigenous peoples? How do we determine which projects are truly in the national interest?
[English]
The bill leaves it a mystery. What is a project in the national interest? There is a definition section in the bill that tells us that a project in the national interest can be found in schedule 1. Of course, schedule 1 is blank, and we can find out what is going to be put there because cabinet is going to decide, and there are no fixed criteria or anything reviewable later on as to why a project was in the national interest.
It could be that the main factor taken into consideration is polling. That would not be against this law, and there would be no way to challenge it in court later. It could be that everything put forward by cabinet is absolutely brilliant, and I will be cheering for it, like an east-west-north-south electricity grid or a public transit system that works for people in the way the inquiry on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls wanted. It was made a call for justice that there be public transit so that vulnerable people like indigenous women and girls would not be forced to hitchhike, because there is no way to get from A to B in a wealthy, modernized, industrialized country like Canada unless someone has the money to own a car or buy a plane ticket.
There are many projects in the national interest that we need. The Prime Minister said that free, prior and informed consent and the rights of indigenous people are “at the heart” of Bill C-5. I do not want to rewrite his speeches for him, but I suspect what he really wanted to say was that it is in his heart. It is what his government cares about, but it is nowhere to be found in Bill C-5.
I suspect our first big national interest project is going to be something of a moon shot. It is going to be building a time machine, because we cannot get free, prior and informed consent unless indigenous peoples, first nations, Métis and Inuit are in at the very beginning of the conversation, before it gets put on the national interest project list. For that, my friends, we need a time machine to go back in time to do the consultations that will not have happened, because with the way the legislation is drafted, it cannot happen in advance.
I am all for a time machine, but I do not think it is very practical. I do not think it is likely to happen. I think like many leaders in indigenous communities do. As Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said in her testimony to the House and the Senate as national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and as Jody Wilson-Raybould has said, our former minister of justice and someone who really understands the rights and title of first nations in section 35, this bill would do violence to the efforts we have made, inadequate as they are, toward reconciliation.
This bill has clauses that are completely unbelievable, such as clause 6, which would deem that decisions made in the future are already going to be in favour of the project proceeding, even before we have either listed the project or studied it. That is a fascinating provision, a provision that only Henry VIII could have come up with. The kinds of powers the government would be taking onto itself are unknown in modern times, and they should have remained so.
I will be voting against both part 1 and part 2, with reluctance. I would love to be on board. I want the government to succeed because Canada has to succeed. We must have a successful country that stands up against the arrogance and threats of the Trump administration, but we do that through economic sovereignty. We do not do it by imitating Trumpian moves, like deciding the central power needs more power. We do not do it with the bravado of signing statements that are meaningless. Laws in this country should be drafted with precision. Words have meaning when they are in legislation. Words in press releases and promises are good, as long as governments respect the things they have said in elections, but to say they mean something and care about something is rather a hollow claim when they produce a bill like Bill C-5.
[Translation]
This makes me so very sad. I think it is a real tragedy that the first bill introduced by this new government is so dangerous, as we have seen in recent days and weeks.
[English]
All I can say at this point is that it breaks my heart. I want to be with the new government. I want to be with my colleagues and stand for one Canadian economy, but we need to think it through. We cannot make it so with the bravado of a great signing ceremony and a bill whose laudable ends are undermined by appalling drafting and a claim for powers that no government should hope to achieve.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very significant day today. The Prime Minister and Liberal candidates from across the country made a solid commitment as part of our election platform to build one Canadian economy. It was on page 1 of the platform. Sometime in the next half-hour, we are going to be passing Bill C-5. That is a checkoff. That is something the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus pushed through to fulfill a solemn commitment we made to Canadians.
I will conclude by saying that in the last number of weeks, we have seen all sorts of initiatives from a new Prime Minister and a new administration. We are making a difference. We will continue to work hard for Canadians.
Could the leader of the Green Party explain why, in a nutshell, she feels that this bill should not pass?
Mr. Speaker, the bill cries out for amendments and improvements to ensure that the projects chosen to be in the national interest meet some kind of binding set of criteria. It needs to create a system. Why have a law in place, as opposed to a wonderful declaration that everyone signs? If it is a law, it should have accountability mechanisms. It should be reviewable by a federal court if the promises and commitments made by the government are not observed.
The bill has nothing mandatory. Even the much-vaunted major projects office is a discretionary move. It is claimed the bill would do all sorts of things: We will not proceed unless there is consensus and we will not proceed unless there is a private sector proponent. The Minister of Natural Resources said this in the main estimates, but nothing in the bill says that.
Uqaqtittiji, the Liberal government, a minority, which to me does not indicate that this is such a massive decision by all of Canada, has successfully pushed through legislation that would violate the rights of indigenous peoples. It does so first of all by the process of getting Bill C-5 through in such a fast-tracked way, but it will continue to do so because of the way the legislation is crafted.
I wonder if the member can share with us the impact this bill would have on indigenous children. Will they be part of this great economy that the Liberal and Conservative coalition has led in Bill C-5?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member of Parliament for Nunavut, for her extraordinary courage, her championing of indigenous rights and her consistently calling out the importance of intergenerational love. There has been a lot of trauma visited on indigenous peoples, and I do not know anyone who has been clearer than the hon. member for Nunavut.
The offences done to indigenous rights in the bill are significant, and the offences to children, whether settler culture children or indigenous children, in undermining our democracy, will cause, I am afraid to say, serious damage. I have never seen a government expand powers to the centre and then, when the so-called emergency is over, relinquish them to go back to normal levels of respect for Westminster parliamentary democracy. The role of a prime minister is first among equals.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate. In rushing through Bill C-5, not only does it, of course, violate indigenous rights, as we have heard, but what are the implications for the environment of overriding environmental standards?
Mr. Speaker, it is a strange thing to find myself more shocked now than I was by things that the Harper government tried. We saw bills pushed through before, but I have never seen an omnibus bill with such breadth and such impact on multiple laws that dictates future decision-making. Again, the use of a time machine would be handy. It violates the basic precepts of study, exploration, hearing from witnesses and making amendments based on hearing advice from those who are experts in the field.
As for the effect on the environment, it could be quite substantial because it is a matter of luck at this point. What projects get approved? Who knows? It is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory all over again.
It being 5:07 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 16, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the first question is on part 1 and on the short title.
[English]
If a member participating in person wishes that part 1 and the short title be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The recorded division on part 1 and the short title stands deferred.
The next question is on part 2, including the schedule, which belongs to part 2.
If a member participating in person wishes that part 2, including the schedule, be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on part 1 and the short title, which were agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 33)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Blois
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Savard-Tremblay
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thériault
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 335
NAYS
Members
MayTotal: -- 1
PAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
(The House divided on part 2 and the schedule, which were agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 34)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Battiste
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Block
Blois
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Gasparro
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jeneroux
Jivani
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Kusie
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 306
NAYS
Members
Barsalou-DuvalBeaulieu
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Bonin
Boulerice
Brunelle-Duceppe
Champoux
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
DeBellefeuille
Deschênes
Erskine-Smith
Fortin
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Idlout
Johns
Kwan
Larouche
Lemire
May
McPherson
Normandin
Perron
Plamondon
Savard-Tremblay
Simard
Ste-Marie
Thériault
Total: -- 31
PAIRED
Members
DowdallGuilbeault
Total: -- 2
I declare part 2, including the schedule, carried.
The House has agreed to the entirety of Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, at the third reading stage.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer