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. 015
CONTENTS
Friday, June 13, 2025
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 015
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, June 13, 2025
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)
moved: 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, be disposed of as follows:
(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order, provided that,
(i) two members from each recognized party, one member from the New Democratic Party and the member from the Green Party may each speak at the said stage for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments,
(ii) during consideration of the bill at second reading, the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown,
(iii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred;
(b) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities,
(i) if the report on the striking of membership of Standing and Standing Joint Committees of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has not yet been concurred in by the House, the whip of each recognized party shall deposit with the Clerk of the House a list of their party's members of the committee no later than the adjournment of the House on the day of the adoption of this order,
(ii) the committee shall meet on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, and on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, at 3:30 p.m., provided that,
(A) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings,
(B) the committee shall meet until 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, for the election of the chair and vice-chairs, the consideration of routine motions governing its proceedings, and to gather evidence from witnesses,
(C) the committee meet until 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, to gather evidence from witnesses and undertake clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,
(D) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by noon on Wednesday, June 18, 2025,
(E) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,
(F) if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill,
(G) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, provided that if the report is presented on Thursday, June 19, 2025, the bill shall be taken up at report stage on the next sitting day;
(c) the bill be ordered for consideration at report stage on Friday, June 20, 2025, provided that,
(i) two members from each recognized party, one member from the New Democratic Party and the member from the Green Party may each speak on report stage motions for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments,
(ii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred, except pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8),
(iii) the bill be ordered for consideration at the third reading stage immediately after concurrence of the bill at report stage;
(d) when the bill is taken up at the third reading stage, pursuant to subparagraph (c)(iii) of this order,
(i) two members from each recognized party, one member from the New Democratic Party and the member from the Green Party may each speak at the said stage for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments,
(ii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred;
(e) on Friday, June 20, 2025, the House shall not adjourn until the proceedings on the bill have been completed, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown, provided that once proceedings have been completed, the House may then proceed to consider other business or, if it has already passed the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day; and
(f) no motion to adjourn the debate at any stage of the said bill may be moved except by a minister of the Crown.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first chance I have had to speak in the House since you became a chair occupant. Let me congratulate you on this important honour.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, which I had the honour of tabling in this House last week. This House is a place where, for generations, Canadians have placed their hopes, confronted adversity together and shaped the future of our country. Today, we do so again, facing challenges both new and familiar. The time for resolute action is now.
At the first ministers' meeting last week in Saskatoon, premiers unanimously expressed their spirited support for decisive movement on nation-building projects. There was a clear recognition that this hinge moment is an opportunity to reunite with the can-do spirit that envisioned and built, for example, the Confederation Bridge or the St. Lawrence Seaway. In that spirit, I hope colleagues will join us and recognize that this is an important moment to accelerate the adoption of this legislation.
Canada stands at a crossroads. Global shifts and internal obstacles demand a clear and rapid response. The United States, our closest trade and security partner, has become unpredictable and undependable. It has imposed unjustified and illegal tariffs, reminding us that our prosperity cannot rely disproportionately on the status quo. However, in challenge lies opportunity. Canada's unity, resolve and resourcefulness are obviously our greatest assets.
[Translation]
In the same spirit, I am honoured to speak to Bill C‑5, the one Canadian economy act, a plan designed to remove barriers, redefine our vision and open a new chapter in our national history. The time for action is now.
From fishers in the Northumberland Strait to mine workers in Whitehorse and innovators in Montreal, let this be the moment where we come together and choose to build and achieve great things. In the face of these new uncertainties, it is up to us to forge our economic destiny.
[English]
One of the central pillars of this legislation is a new framework for what we call projects of national interest, initiatives that will move our country forward, reinforce our economic sovereignty and drive prosperity in every region of the country.
For far too long, major projects, whether energy transmission lines, critical mineral developments, pipelines or clean technology projects, have been stalled by assessments, challenges, and overlapping and duplicative regulations. Investors, provinces and territories, and the business community have said that it is too difficult and takes too long to build important economically feasible projects in Canada. This has led to potential missed investment opportunities, lost jobs and a lack of competitiveness vis-à-vis our international counterparts. Our shared prosperity requires quick action.
[Translation]
This bill would introduce a new tool, a process for identifying, prioritizing and advancing transformative infrastructure and development projects. To support this new process, the government plans to create a new federal major projects office to coordinate, problem-solve and fast-track projects of national interest, transitioning from a fragmented approach to approval to unified, decisive action. For projects of national interest like these, we are committed to making decisions within a maximum time frame of two years, not five years or more.
The Prime Minister has been very clear. Moving forward, we will commit to a “one project, one review” approach. The days of duplication and cost overruns are over. Federal, provincial and territorial authorities will all work on a single assessment to move quickly, while remaining just as thorough and maintaining public trust. Standards will be high. Only projects that strengthen Canada's resilience, provide measurable economic benefits and are in line with our environmental, social and indigenous reconciliation values will receive this designation. Our goal is to put “Canada” and “achievement”, not “Canada” and “delay”, in the same sentence.
[English]
Just as vital is the continued commitment by this government that indigenous governments, partners and indeed indigenous peoples and communities must be engaged from the outset. Respect for constitutionally protected indigenous rights, knowledge and priorities is obviously non-negotiable and is clearly enunciated in the bill currently before the House. When we say partnership is the foundation, we mean exactly that. Whether in Inuvik, the Métis heartland of Manitoba or the Mi'kmaq territory in Atlantic Canada, nation building is only real if it is shared. That is why equity partnerships for indigenous peoples will be supported and prioritized.
Environmental stewardship will also remain paramount. This bill would not weaken any of Canada's core environmental statutes. Instead, it is about considering whether major projects drive clean growth and forge a sustainable legacy for the next generations.
The work of building a modern one Canadian economy does not stop with flagship projects. Our prosperity also depends on removing barriers that hobble Canadians' ability to trade, connect and work wherever opportunity calls across our country.
Let us talk about the reality facing thousands of small business owners everyday. Let us say someone makes kitchen appliances right here in Ontario. They might be investing in new refrigeration or dishwasher technology that saves Canadians money on their electricity bills, but even though they meet Ontario's stringent energy efficiency requirements, they cannot say their product meets federal standards for energy efficiency unless they have met all the federal testing, labelling and compliance procedures. As a result, they would not be able to sell their appliances across the border into Quebec or Manitoba. It might take months or more to navigate the federal process to prove their product is really as energy efficient as they say or as the Ontario standards have confirmed. That can slow things down and obviously adds cost.
[Translation]
The results of that are clear: unnecessary costs, regulatory confusion and a missed economic opportunity. Bill C‑5 is designed to ensure that a product that meets provincial or territorial energy efficiency standards would meet comparable federal standards.
Under this bill, if a good is produced, used or sold in accordance with a province's rules, it can move across the country without having to meet federal standards as long as it serves the same purpose.
Think about a Manitoba truck driver who has to deal not only with provincial requirements, but also with additional federal rules when crossing the border into Saskatchewan or Ontario. Paperwork, fees and compliance reviews are all barriers that slow down our most ambitious workers and businesses.
This bill will remove those federal barriers. A good or service produced in line with provincial or territorial regulations will be recognized as meeting comparable federal standards for interprovincial trade.
[English]
Labour mobility is also part of this bill. People in too many professions, like nurses, engineers, land surveyors and skilled trades people, find their skills underutilized due to conflicting or duplicate certification requirements. Where federal and provincial regulations overlap, this legislation guarantees swift mutual recognition of provincial and territorial credentials for federally regulated workers. This is about leveraging Canada's full talent pool, ensuring that skilled workers can answer opportunity's call everywhere in the country without bureaucratic delay. It is also about Canadians trusting each other. Every barrier we lift is a door opened to higher wages, broader horizons and greater economic momentum.
With this legislation, Canada positions itself firmly to become a clean and conventional energy superpower. Fort McMurray oil sands will lead on both production and emissions reductions. Edmonton and Sarnia are primed for leadership in hydrogen. New transmission infrastructure will ferry Labrador's clean hydro to Montreal and beyond.
We will mine, refine and finish uranium from Saskatchewan, lithium in northern Quebec and cobalt from Nunavut, delivering resources the world needs from a reliable, sustainable partner. Pipelines and port expansions will be built faster and smarter with climate and community in mind, showing that economic and environmental progress are not at odds but intertwined. Canada will not simply participate in the global resource economy; we will help define it.
I would like to assure the House that this commitment to acceleration does not mean exclusion or diminution of environmental standards or, obviously, our constitutionally enshrined obligations to indigenous peoples. Every major project advanced through the changes proposed in Bill C-5 will require real partnerships with indigenous peoples. We have already announced that we are setting up an indigenous advisory council. We will ensure that self-determination, inclusion and respect are at the heart of this process.
[Translation]
Environmental protection measures are essential too. Projects of national interest must facilitate clean, responsible growth, meeting today's needs while leaving a healthy legacy for future generations. This bill is driven by and focused on Canadians. It is for young apprentices in Lethbridge considering a career in biofuels, for power line technicians in Thunder Bay and for health care professionals in Moncton.
We are delivering what Canadians have always asked for: an economy that rewards people who work hard and innovate, no matter where they live. There has never been a better time for the world to choose to do business with Canada. We offer a stable and predictable political environment and a skilled and diverse workforce, making us the best place in the world for investment and collaboration.
[English]
Where our allies seek certainty, reliable timelines or climate leadership, Canada is ready to answer that call with our brightest and our best. Let us capture this moment, one where trade flourishes, dreams of workers and business owners can grow, and hope will abound in every part of our country as we look to greater economic prosperity together.
We have a real opportunity now, across political parties and regions, to unite behind the idea of delivering, not delaying. Let us remove the barriers that keep us locked in 13 separate economies instead of one growing, sustainable Canadian economy. Let us turn the page and move forward with purpose, to get big things built in this country once again.
Mr. Speaker, on April 17, 2025, the Prime Minister said, “Secondly, to commit the federal government to do its part by Canada Day, so free trade in Canada by Canada Day.”
Even if this legislation passes by July 1, we will still have many, many barriers, some provincial and even some federal. Why did the Prime Minister mislead Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, of course, did not mislead Canadians. Our colleague will know that it is only within the jurisdiction of this Parliament or the Government of Canada to remove barriers that are properly federal barriers to free trade within Canada.
The provinces also have a series of measures that they are working on removing. In fact, I have been very encouraged by provinces signing agreements with each other and by provinces trying to lead each other in who can move the fastest. Conservative premiers, New Democratic premiers and Liberal premiers are doing this work with the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in his song Les Yankees, Richard Desjardins sang the following:
We come on behalf of Big Control
...
The president has ordered me
To bring peace to the entire world...
Basically, this is what indigenous people are being told:
We come as friends
But enough discussion
Now sign your submission...
The government sends a letter and gives grand chiefs five days to relinquish their rights, so it can say that first nations have been consulted. However, I do not see that as consultation. Not every community has been consulted. The government is ignoring the fact that all nations have different ways of doing things. In my view, the government is telling first nations and the people of Quebec how things are going to be.
Does the minister agree that a little more time should be taken in order to respect the spirit of reconciliation and consultation with first nations?
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue that we need to fulfill our obligations with regard to consultation and partnership. I know how committed my colleague is to indigenous peoples, and I really appreciate that. That is something we have in common.
The five-day consultation he referred to is a consultation process in a bill that is before Parliament and that would enable the government to designate projects as being in the national interest. The government and private companies would then be able to conduct extensive consultations.
We are building something, but these consultations obviously have to happen before a project can be designated and approved.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we have a new Prime Minister, a new administration. Coming out of the last federal election, we have been given a very clear mandate: a healthy, stronger one Canadian economy for all regions of our country. This bill captures what I believe is the essence of an election platform, and this is something that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are behind.
Would the minister not agree that this legislation is a reflection of a very important platform issue from the April 28 election?
Mr. Speaker, I know that colleagues in the House will be disappointed. I arrived at the last minute to give this speech. I am told that the first speech has unlimited time. If I had not arrived in time, colleagues could have heard the member for Winnipeg North for possibly a few weeks on this bill.
My colleague from Winnipeg North is absolutely right. This commitment to one Canadian economy, to getting big projects in the national interest built quickly, was on page 1 of the Liberal platform. This should not surprise any parliamentarian. The government is in fact moving quickly on an obligation we have to Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that overview of the bill. He mentioned several times health care workers such as myself and how this bill would allow them to go between provinces with greater ease. At other points in his speech, he talked about federally regulated workers. From my reading of this bill, this would not make it any easier for myself as a physician or for nurses to go and practise where practice is needed.
Could the minister go on the record right now and explain how this would actually affect health care workers in Ontario and other provinces today?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, and I absolute appreciate the challenge he has just identified.
One of my friends for the last couple of decades is also a physician, Andrew Furey, and he was the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador until recently. He worked with Atlantic premiers because, as my colleague has correctly identified, the actual certification of physicians and other health care professionals is properly within the provincial domain. Atlantic Canada got together and created an Atlantic physicians registry, led by the four provinces, which we think is an example to the rest of the country. The Government of Canada wants to encourage exactly that kind of work.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the minister is so fond of his own bill because it would give excessive power to him personally. The minister will be able to designate projects as being in the national interest, hold non-binding consultations and have the federal government adopt environmental standards. Nothing would prevent the federal government from adopting the lowest environmental standard in the least rigorous province. Essentially, that would result in the federal government allowing one province to legislate in the place of another province that is fulfilling its responsibilities, such as Quebec.
I would like the minister to tell us what the point of having provinces is.
Mr. Speaker, I obviously understand the political aspect of my colleague's question.
I think we need to be careful before defining the responsibility that the bill can assign to a minister. We have to be careful not to exaggerate those circumstances. As I have said, environmental standards and regulations will obviously be at the forefront, as will consultation with indigenous peoples.
I would have thought my friend would be happy that the Government of Canada wants to work with BAPE in Quebec or with the Quebec process so that major projects in Quebec get approved more quickly, as a result of that partnership.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as the proud mother of an operating engineer who is working on projects of national interest as we speak, I want to ask the minister if he can tell us a bit about the reception of this bill by organized labour.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague often speaks about her son, who is an example of exactly the kind of worker and skilled professional the country and, frankly, this government want to support.
I was encouraged by conversations with labour leaders representing not only the skilled trades but a series of other professions that would benefit from exactly this kind of nation-building exercise. Provincial premiers speak to labour leaders about the importance of creating economic opportunity at a time when our economy is threatened, and we are doing this for people exactly like my colleague's son.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his re-election and on introducing this bill.
He talked about the principle of “one project, one environmental assessment”. That is a principle we agree on. Just 13 months ago, we actually had a vote in the House on Bill C‑375, which had the same exact goal. The Bloc Québécois agreed with the principle that we had put forward, but, curiously, the Liberals voted against it.
As the legal experts suggested, our approach was to say that for each project, federal experts and experts from the province where the project was taking place should meet, work together and conduct one assessment.
Is that exactly the approach the minister is proposing?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk for his question. He just put his finger on exactly what we want to do with this bill.
We have been very clear. The Prime Minister was very clear during the election campaign. Within six months at the most, we would like to have exactly the kind of agreement that my colleague just described to avoid duplication and to minimize costs for businesses, provinces and Crown corporations that are proposing major projects. We also want to use the expertise that provincial and territorial authorities often have and ensure that the federal government's expertise is complementary, that it adds value and that it does not create obstacles that would duplicate or extend the project.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, where is Canada after this last, lost, anti-development Liberal decade? Only 11 years ago, Canada became internationally recognized as home to the richest and biggest middle class in the world, with more children lifted out of poverty than ever before. Heading into 2015, the budget was under control, with a billion-dollar surplus, and Canada's economy was the strongest in the G7, the last in and the first out of the great global recession.
Today, Canada's economy has fallen behind those of our allies. Productivity lags. Workers cannot make ends meet and wonder whose job will be gone next. Canada's natural wealth sits idle in the ground and offshore. Investment heads south and to other countries. Families, and people with no one else to count on but themself, fall further behind. Young people lose hope for their future and wonder whether they will ever be able to afford a home, build up a nest egg or actually capture their big dreams.
Communities lose opportunities and dwindle. Businesses close due to excessive red tape, taxes, costs and constant uncertainty, and they have to reduce their charitable and community contributions. Violence, crime, mental distress and suicide, especially among rural men, are on a steady rise.
Killing energy projects does not just cost jobs; it also costs communities. It takes away critical revenue to build roads and bridges. It takes away revenue for critical supports for social programs; to build arenas; to support health care, like the long-term partnerships with the Lloydminster and Bonnyville regional health foundations and energy companies; and to build schools and universities.
Today, Canada works for the super-rich, the well established, the elites, the well-connected, the big companies of all kinds, mostly foreign-founded and multinationals. It does not work for the Canadian people who do the work, take big risks and build big projects: individual entrepreneurs, small business owners, innovators, and workers and contractors who fuel, feed and power this country for our Canadian people. That is the Liberal legacy; the cost to Canadians is real, and it is staggering.
Today, we as MPs find ourselves in an odd position. The very same government that inflicted the last decade of anti-energy, anti-private-sector death by delay and uncertainty on natural resource workers and businesses in every corner of Canada, that harmed all the secondary and tertiary sectors that depend on it everywhere, that sent allies away in dire need of Canadian resources, and that divided our country, pitting Canadians, provinces, businesses and sectors against each other, suddenly claims to want big natural resources and infrastructure projects to get built in Canada, so it brought in Bill C-5, with all kinds of big promises.
However, at its heart, Bill C-5 is really a glaring admission that everything the Liberals have done for the last 10 years has made Canada a place where the red tape and constantly changing goalposts get to “no”, and nothing can get built efficiently or affordably.
The real question is this: Would the Liberals' Bill C-5 really clean up the colossal mess the Liberals themselves have made? Where are the projects held back by the lost Liberal decade? Where are the investments that would have created prosperity for every single Canadian? Where are the thousands of well-paid jobs for Canadians everywhere, and especially in rural, remote, northern, Atlantic and indigenous communities that need them most? Where are the revenues for all three levels of government to fund public services and programs, build public infrastructure and support communities?
Where has all that gone, and how much are we talking about here anyway? Well, Canada has lost $670 billion in cancelled oil, gas, LNG and pipeline projects alone since 2015, due completely to the Liberals' anti-energy, anti-development messages, policies and laws.
On Wednesday night, in committee of the whole, the minister and I discussed Bill C-5 a bit. I suggested an obvious, immediate first step, if the Liberals really want to get Canadians working and building to strengthen Canada's economy and sovereignty, that would not require weeks and months of delay, meeting after meeting, and press conference promises with very few details.
The minister said I brought up “hypothetical projects”, and he refused to say whether they met his factors for projects in the national interest, which the Liberals themselves will decide. That was alarming in itself, since the projects I mentioned are real projects, with real proponents, that would offer real jobs with powerful paycheques for Canadians and long-term tax revenue for all three levels of government. Real businesses are paying real money and losing real time trying to get to build their big projects. The problem is that they are stuck in one form of federal regulation or red tape right now.
The immediate solution is blindingly obvious, without all the extra rigamarole, uncertainty and time delays. What was extra weird about the minister's evasion is that of the five vague factors the Liberals have outlined for Bill C-5, which they will use themselves to decide what is in the national interest, two of these factors are that projects must bring economic or other benefits to Canada and that they must have a high likelihood of successful execution. Clearly the top priority action, then, to fast-track efficiently should be all the projects and proponents stuck in red tape right now by the Liberals' own conditions.
Where is the Crawford nickel-cobalt mine project near Timmins, Ontario? It was proposed in 2020 but is stuck in the regulatory mess the Liberals created. Where is the Troilus gold and copper mining project in Quebec? It has been stuck in the regulator since 2023. Where are the Rook I uranium mine and Denison uranium mine projects in northern Saskatchewan? They were proposed in 2019 and are both still stuck. Where is the Bruce C nuclear project planned for Ontario? It is stuck in double layers of regulatory review.
It is no wonder Canada ranks dead last in the G7 for development. The projects are not only lost in red tape; they also seem to be lost completely from consideration by the minister, since he was so adamant on Tuesday night that they did not exist. They are five projects, five chances to grow Canada's economy, five chances to lead the world in energy, innovation, responsible resource development and indigenous opportunities.
Of course, it is not only those five projects. In fact, there are dozens of major energy, nuclear, critical mineral and indigenous-backed resource road proposals that are stuck in limbo right now at the federal level. These projects are not theoretical; they have names, investors and local support. They have involved years of engineering, technical, environmental and consultation work, risk and investment.
The missing piece is a federal government with a will to fast-track the assessments through the regulatory maze it created itself, to approve them efficiently and to back proponents once they approve them so proponents can actually build on their time and on their dime. In Bill C-69, as would also be the case in Bill C-5, cabinet is the final decision-maker, with all the power.
Currently, both officials and ministers already have significant sweeping powers to start, stop, restart, extend, delay and suspend, and to change the rules and start all over again as many times as they want. It is no wonder things cannot get built. The government also has the power to fast-track the projects right now. Instead, it ignores all the real and ready projects, proponents and people, and has brought in a short-term workaround of its own bad policies and laws, Bill C-5.
The Liberals talk about emissions reduction and imposed electric vehicle mandates, and they want so-called green growth, but they stalled the very projects needed to make all that happen. We cannot build electric vehicles without nickel, lithium and cobalt, currently dominated by China. We cannot power a reliable, affordable modern grid without uranium and natural gas. We cannot reduce emissions and build new technology without the innovation, jobs and revenues that come from responsible Canadian resource development, mostly from traditional oil and gas, and from pipeline companies.
Alberta is an example. By 2023, Alberta oil sands reduced emissions intensity while growing production by 96%. Alberta leads the country in alternative energy development too, as in fact it always has.
According to the federal government's national inventory report from 2025, Alberta had the largest absolute reduction in emissions of any Canadian province between 2022 and 2023. That is the truth the Liberals will not tell Canadians. Albertans cut emissions not by shutting down, but by showing up and building through free enterprise, innovation and technology, getting better emissions reduction results, real emissions reduction results, without killing jobs or driving away investment. However, the Liberal government still treats as problems not solutions Alberta and every province that develops resources, those of us in the so-called ROC, the rest of Canada, that politicians in Ottawa usually ignore. The Liberals punish the most responsible energy producers in the world and give a free pass to foreign polluters. They celebrate emissions reductions in Canada when they come from lockdowns, lost jobs and bankrupt businesses.
Canadians cannot afford essentials because the government drives up costs and imposes unrealistic targets on power and fuel. It is worse when the facts do not fit the Liberals' narrative. When it turns out that Alberta reduces emissions the most, the Liberals stay silent. When LNG could displace coal from growing energy demand in Asia, India and Africa from B.C., or help secure European energy needs and cut dependence on Russia, the Liberals turn allies away. When western provinces want to build major projects or northerners want to mine and drill offshore, the Liberals deny, ban and delay. When Atlantic Canadians want to drill offshore, ship LNG to Europe or have a pipeline to bring western oil to eastern refineries so future generations of Atlantic Canadians can stay home with jobs and abundant opportunities, the Liberals interfere and then look away.
Let me pause here to tell members how important that issue is to me, because the fact is that Atlantic Canadians and Albertans are inextricably linked. We have helped build each other's provinces in the best interests of all Canadians. I say that as a first-generation born-and-raised Albertan and the daughter of a Nova Scotian and a Newfoundlander.
The Liberals spend years talking about reconciliation, yet delay, risk or kill pipelines, roads, mining projects and LNG opportunities that so many indigenous leaders, elders, youth, entrepreneurs and workers spent years negotiating with businesses to get jobs, to get their own-source revenue and to do environmental oversight in a good way. The Liberals claim to support first nations but deny them the opportunity to own, to build, to partner and to profit. It is not reconciliation when Ottawa decides who can build and who must wait. It is not partnership when one side always says no. It is not respect when indigenous voices are ignored because they want to make their own development decisions and exercise their rights and title.
The bill that we are debating today proves what Conservatives have said all along: The Liberals' antidevelopment agenda kills Canadian jobs, kills Canadian investment, weakens Canada's security, unity and sovereignty, and has made our country a risky place where nothing can get built and where uncompetitive, pancaked and incoherent taxes, laws and policies; uncertainty; and constantly changing goalposts deter big projects from our own country.
Canadians deserve a plan based on facts and results, not vague statements and delay from the same government that caused the problems it suddenly now claims to want to fix. The consequences of the Liberals' antidevelopment decade are growing poverty, not prosperity, and fractured national unity. The Liberals pit Canadians against each other and attack Albertan businesses in particular with constant misinformation and myths.
The reality is that when Alberta builds and grows, so does Canada, and when Alberta is strong, so is Canada. Albertans have been there all along with our friends from Saskatchewan and from Atlantic Canada. We have just been asking the Liberals to help get the country's top export from the industry that is still the biggest investor in Canada's declining economy by far, whether the anti-energy zealots like it or not, to more markets globally so Canada is not dependent on the United States.
Ten years later, ten years of this lost last antidevelopment Liberal decade, Canada faces economic, security and sovereignty threats from our closest ally, the world's biggest economy, our biggest customer and now, because the Liberals held Canada back every step of the way, our biggest competitor. Canadians cannot afford essentials, because the government drove up the costs of power and fuel for everyone.
Make no mistake; it did not have to be this way. With all due respect, by which I mean almost none, the time to “build Canada” and make our country self-reliant, secure, united and strong was the last decade. The answer has always been to unleash Canada's natural resources and increase production and export customers, as Conservatives and only Conservatives have consistently and unequivocally advocated the entire time. This was never actually an even-sided theoretical or philosophical debate. It has always been simply the fiscal and economic reality of our country.
Canadians deserve a government that backs them, not a government that blocks them and not a government that pees down our leg and tells us it is raining. Bill C-5 is breadcrumbs and baby steps, not a real breakthrough of Liberal-inflicted barriers on Canada. Our country needs real change and long-term, concrete certainty for the private sector and for Canadian workers to make us autonomous, resilient and secure, as the Liberals say they want to do now, even though they have been in charge around here for the last 10 years.
What would that actually look like? It would mean fixing the fundamentals and repealing the failed “no new pipelines, never build anything” bill, Bill C-69, which is rife with uncertainty; which has no concrete timelines despite Liberal claims, arbitrary and unrelated conditions, political interference and jurisdictional overreach; and which the provinces, territories, businesses and indigenous groups all oppose or want to overhaul. The Supreme Court declared Bill C-69 unconstitutional for every single reason that Conservatives, and it happened to be me, warned about during the debates. However, Liberals ignored this entire Conservative team, all the premiers, all the territorial leaders, the private sector and the Senate and rammed it through anyway.
The government should repeal the shipping ban bill, Bill C-48, which blocks dedicated export routes for Canada's much-needed energy to countries with actual emerging markets that need Canadian energy and technology in Asia, like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines, and to European allies like Germany, Latvia, Ukraine, Greece and Poland.
The geopolitical security aspects of this issue, obviously, cannot be overstated. That ban signals that shipping may be blocked by the government off any coast, just like its offshore unilateral drilling bans and antidevelopment zones on land and in water, but it stays. Clearly, the Liberals are A-okay with Canada's allies and other countries getting energy they will continue to want long into the future from the U.S. or from foreign regimes like Venezuela, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia over Canada, with much lower environmental, labour and safety standards and where the benefits usually only go to a wealthy few.
The government should repeal the Canadian oil and gas cap that will cut Canadian energy production by 5%, kill over 50,000 jobs and remove over $20 billion from Canada's GDP. That is self-inflicted sabotage that no other country in the world is doing to itself and totally nonsensical for what is actually a radical anti-energy government suddenly plagiarizing, like someone's thesis, the former Conservative government's vision for Canada as an energy superpower.
While the minister and his Liberal buddies laughed when I asked questions about job losses, Canadians stress, wondering where their next paycheque will come from. In 2021, TD Economics projected that of Canadian oil and gas jobs, up to 75% could disappear by 2050. The Liberals call it a transition for Canada. It is devastation.
The Liberals should repeal the globalist, top-down economic restructuring, just transition plan in Bill C-50 that they already know will threaten the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians and cause labour disruptions, which is bureaucratese for job losses, for 642,000 workers in the transportation sector, almost 300,000 agriculture workers, 202,000 energy workers and, get this, 193,000 in Canada's important manufacturing sector, which is maybe more important than ever before, given this world becoming more dangerous and the global threats that Canada faces because this Liberal government has failed us.
The truth is, the future does not look brighter with the same government pretending to be a new one. TD reports the unemployment rate in Canada has risen to its highest rate since 2016, outside of COVID, to 7%, and 100,000 jobs are to be lost by the third quarter of this year. The job outlook for students is even worse, with a 20% unemployment rate; that is the highest since the 2008 recession. In fact, Canadian manufacturing has lost 55,000 jobs in a period of only four months. This is not getting Canada on track; it is the continued track record of the same Liberal government, and we know what they say about lipstick on a pig.
It was not always this way. Under the former Conservative government, Canada ranked fourth for ease of doing business of all countries in the world. However, by 2020, with the Liberals, Canada had fallen to 24th, behind Georgia and Thailand. Today, Canada ranks near the bottom globally for construction permits, property registration, securing electricity and cross-border trade. In fact, Canada is ranked second worst in the OECD for construction permit timelines because of the Liberals.
The Liberals' blocked projects, hiked taxes and doubled debt have made Canada 30% less productive than the U.S. today. Since 2015, $5.6 trillion has left Canada for the U.S. That is not a coincidence; that is a Liberal consequence. The trend of Canadian investment up in the U.S. and U.S. investment down in Canada is a historic anomaly caused squarely, and for the first time ever, by the Liberals' damaging economic and energy policies.
Just last week, StatsCan reported a more than 5% decline in forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying, and oil and gas since last spring. Declines in primary and resource-producing sectors impact everything else. Ontarians now face the worst unemployment, outside COVID, since 2013. In April alone, Ontario lost 33,000 manufacturing jobs. Tens of thousands of real people lost their jobs while the Liberals patronized and laughed at opposition MPs fighting for those workers. It is a travesty that it has taken global instability, external threats, growing conflicts and a cost-of-living crisis that the Liberals created for them to even appear to take notice.
Canadians now know, without a doubt, that energy security means food, job and national security for Canada. Last year, the energy sector contributed 7.7% of GDP, or $208.8 billion, to Canada; 446,600 Canadian workers, including 10,800 indigenous people, relied on natural resources. My point here is that none of this is accidental or externally inflicted on Canada. It is the direct result of domestic antidevelopment laws and policies. Canada's top global energy and resource competitors have ramped up their production of all kinds in the same time period, with much lower standards than Canada.
We now arrive at Bill C-5. The current Prime Minister, who advised the last one for half a decade and is well known for his global advocacy to keep resources in the ground, has not actually explained whether he has had some kind of major philosophical metamorphosis, transformation and awakening from all his previous values and views but nevertheless has met with premiers and businesses and suddenly claims to want to do what Conservatives have been urging the gatekeeping, road-blocking, radical Liberals to do the entire time, which is to build, build, build.
However, there are a lot of questions. Let us start at the beginning. As of right now, the Liberals say five factors will be considered to determine whether projects are in the national interest. Bill C-5 says a project must “strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security”; “provide economic or other”, whatever that means, “benefits to Canada”; “have a high likelihood of successful execution”; “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”; and “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.”
Now, it is worth a a pause here to point out that most Canadians would likely be shocked that these factors are not already part of regulatory and cabinet decision-making and may rightly wonder what the heck the government has been thinking about for the past decade.
Also, it is worth noting that these concepts are broad enough that any interpretation or any argument could be made about each factor either way for any project, which is, of course, automatically and inherently uncertain, and wide open to manipulation and ideological or politically connected decision-making. So much for objective, technology- and sector-agnostic, predictable, clear, certain and evidence-based decision-making in Canada.
As of right now, there is no public list of projects. Now, the Prime Minister says he is getting lists from provinces, and some premiers have said what their asks are, yet the minister claims there is no list and that that will happen after Bill C-5 is law. The minister specifically said on Wednesday, and I meant Wednesday earlier when I said Tuesday, that “when the projects are designated, they will be made public.”
Do the projects drive the legislation, or does the legislation drive the projects? Do they have a list from premiers or do they not? Nobody knows, because of mixed messages and misleading answers. What is clear is that the whole thing is a politically driven and determined process, which is, actually, already exactly what the Liberals have been doing for the last decade. That is the opposite of clarity and certainty--
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
St. Andrew Anglican Church
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present my first member's statement in this new Parliament. I will begin by thanking the people of Saanich—Gulf Islands for returning me to Parliament to work on their behalf.
I want to highlight an event that happened this week, which is the reason I am participating remotely. As some may know, I am a practising Anglican and try to follow the path of Jesus Christ in my work. I am a parishioner at a little parish called St. Andrew Anglican Church in Sidney, British Columbia.
This week, on Wednesday, June 11, we had the great honour of our bishop, the Right Reverend Anna Greenwood-Lee, come to St. Andrew's. She went up, believe it or not, in a cherry picker, in the bucket, to the roof of the church hall to bless the solar panels. We had prepared and worshipped together with a liturgy for the blessing of solar panels.
Those panels will save our parish $3,000 a year to go toward the work to help the homeless and those who need support.
Annual Veteran's Salmon Derby
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 12th Annual Veteran's Salmon Derby taking place on June 14 in Bronte Harbour, Oakville.
Since its founding, this incredible event has grown from a local initiative into a cherished tradition, bringing together Canadian Armed Forces veterans, serving and retired; their families; local businesses; and our community. More than just a fishing derby, it is dedicated to the emotional well-being of those who have given so much in service to Canada. It also raises critical funds for Veterans Helping Veterans and the military family resource centre, which are supporting those who stood for Canada and deserve our ongoing support. This year's event will honour not only veterans but also numerous COVID-19 responders, recognizing their dedication during some of Canada's most challenging times.
I thank the organizers, volunteers, sponsors and especially our veterans and frontline heroes for their service and sacrifice. I wish tight lines to all participating.
Condolences
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House with a heavy heart following the heartbreaking crash of an Air India flight en route to London. My heart goes out to the victims, their families and all those impacted by the devastating tragedy.
In that same spirit of reflection, I wish to honour the legacy of Peter Robertson, a dedicated public servant, educator and pillar of the Brampton community. Mayor Robertson began his public service in 1976 as a regional councillor, and in 1991, he was entrusted by the people to serve as mayor of Brampton, leading the city for nearly a decade through a period of significant growth and transformation. His leadership was defined by vision, principle and a steadfast commitment to serving his fellow citizens.
Today, on behalf of the residents of Brampton West, I extend my deepest condolences to his loved ones. His name lives on, not just on Peter Robertson Boulevard, but in the countless lives he touched. May his example of service, humility and vision continue to inspire us all.
Musqueam Canoe Races
Mr. Speaker, there are many great places in Vancouver Quadra and none are more special to me than the mouth of the Fraser River. From its headwaters hundreds of kilometres north, to where it enters the Salish Sea, it has always been a special place for residents of Vancouver Quadra. Over the years, it was used as our highway, and now it is being used as a working river.
Many years ago, the Musqueam people, where I come from, raced in what are called the war canoe races. They raced against other first nations from Coast Salish territory, Washington State, Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island. That went dormant for a number of years until Elder Dick Louis and Kelly Louis brought it back for the youth of the Musqueam people.
We now host thousands of spectators and hundreds of people from across Coast Salish territory. That is going to happen this weekend, June 13, 14 and 15, starting tonight. Everyone in the area is invited to come down and enjoy as they reconnect with their culture, share their culture with Canada and raise their hands to each and every one of them.
Hay čxʷ q̓ə.
Italian Heritage Month
Mr. Speaker, June is Italian Heritage Month, a time to honour the dreams and sacrifices of those who came before us.
I am a proud granddaughter of Italian Canadians. My grandfather came to Canada, with hope in his heart, to build a life rooted in hard work, family and faith. I am deeply proud of my Italian roots and incredibly honoured to represent the almost 40,000 Italian Canadians in King—Vaughan who entrusted me to be their voice here in Ottawa.
Auguri a tutti gli italiani qui in Canada e in Italia. Felice mese di patrimonio italiano.
This is in honour of the Speaker.
[Member sang in Italian]
Governor General's Award
Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to stand in the House today to highlight the significant achievements of Jeremy Dutcher, who is being awarded this year's Governor General's National Arts Centre Award in recognition of his extraordinary work as an artist, composer, activist, ethnomusicologist and language carrier.
A Wolastoqiyik member of the Tobique first nation, Dutcher was born and raised in Fredericton and has been instrumental in preserving and sharing the Wolastoqiyik language and culture. He is the only two-time Polaris prize winner, a Juno Award winner and has performed on many of the most important stages around the world.
[Translation]
From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank Jeremy for his art, his values and his passion. As the region's representative, I would like to congratulate Jeremy on his extraordinary achievements.
Kuli-kiseht, Jeremy.
[English]
Congratulations.
Summer Events in Cariboo—Prince George
Mr. Speaker, it is that time of year again: It is rodeo season.
It is time to rope that dream, blow off some steam and head to Cariboo—Prince George for the greatest shows on dirt. Starting this weekend, there is the Prince George Western Heritage Society rodeo and the 4th Annual Logan Parent Memorial Bulls & Barrels in 100 Mile House. In two weeks, there will be the 97th annual Williams Lake Stampede, the “wildest show west of the rocks,” and then it will be the 56th Annual Quesnel Rodeo and Billy Barker Days Festival.
It's not just a sport, it's our way of life.
It's the bulls and the blood, the dust and the mud,
The roar of the Sunday crowd,
The Let R Buck Saloon playing the music just a little too loud.
Bucking bronc fun under the hot Quesnel sun,
This summer in Cariboo-PG is gonna be fun.
It's boots and chaps, it's cowboy hats,
Wild horses and the smoke show.
It's the broncs and the blood, it's the steers and the mud,
We call it rodeo.
Yee-haw.
70th Anniversary of the Town of Ajax
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this great House for the first time representing the beautiful community of Ajax, which celebrates its 70th anniversary this year.
I want to thank the residents of Ajax for placing their trust in me, and I want to thank my family and volunteers for their support.
I also want to recognize my predecessor, the hon. Mark Holland, for his many years of service. We wish him well.
As Ajax celebrates this milestone, we recognize its place in history and its vibrancy today. The area was home to Defence Industries Limited, the largest shell-filling plant in the British Commonwealth during World War II.
With a new name needed for the town, a competition was held among its employees, and they selected the name Ajax after one of the ships that defeated the German battleship Graf Spee near Uruguay in 1939. Today, many of Ajax's streets are named after veterans who served on HMS Ajax, and it is home to innovative businesses, the historic Pickering Village, the St. Francis Centre for Community, Arts and Culture, and beautiful green spaces.
I wish Ajax a happy 70th anniversary.
Men Ending Trafficking
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in Jackson's Point in the town of Georgina, I attended the 10th anniversary of the charity Men Ending Trafficking, which was founded 10 years ago on the simple understanding that the vast majority of demand for sex trafficking in Canada is sadly driven by men, and we need more men working to end that in Canada.
I heard heartbreaking stories of daughters stolen, lost and abused, but also hopeful stories of those who, with help, were able to escape a life of exploitation. Through its safeguard program, Men Ending Trafficking brings together teams of women and men to come alongside victims as they navigate the criminal justice system.
I want to thank founder John Cassells and current executive director Trevor Poplar for their tenacious efforts. I know all men in the House will join me in working to end sex trafficking in Canada.
[Translation]
Canada Post Labour Dispute
Mr. Speaker, everyone is affected by the Canada Post labour dispute. However, the government is making a mistake by siding with the employer instead of supporting a lasting, negotiated settlement.
First, the government suspended workers' right to strike in December. Then, yesterday, the Minister of Jobs and Families announced that she will force employees to vote on Canada Post's unilateral proposal instead of going to arbitration. This repeated Liberal meddling has poisoned the collective bargaining atmosphere. Today, the Liberals are shutting down the dialogue by forcing a vote. It seems rather clear that the arbitrator has chosen the winner of the game.
The Liberals' role is to act as guarantors of law, fairness and genuine social dialogue. They need to explain their involvement, which is not conducive to a fair and lasting resolution of the dispute. More importantly, they need to back down.
[English]
Tribute to a Father
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this weekend is Father's Day. I want to take this moment to celebrate my father, Anwar Abbas Naqvi, who will be turning 90 on July 14.
What a remarkable life he has lived. He has always been a planner and a visionary, and he has immigrated twice in his life, first at the age of 19 from India to Pakistan and then later on to this beautiful country of Canada. He has always given the gift of education to my siblings, my brother and sister, and I, telling us how important it is to get a good education, work hard and give back to the community.
He took part in a pro-democracy movement in his younger days, and spent nine months as a political prisoner, because he always challenged the status quo. I want to take this opportunity for members to join me in wishing him a happy 90th birthday. May he live many, many more years. Happy birthday, Daddy.
Freedom of Expression
Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression is the foundation of every other freedom. Without it, we cannot challenge bad ideas, question authority or hold governments to account. We cannot protect truth. Freedom of expression is the oxygen of democracy. When governments decide to censor speech, they begin to control thought itself. This path does not lead to safety. Instead, it leads to silence, fear and eventually oppression.
The Liberals claim that they have changed, that this is a “new government”, but Canadians know better. The government does not trust Canadians. They do not trust Canadians to think independently, to speak freely or to make their own choices, but Conservatives on this side of the House will always protect free speech, always protect open debate and always stand for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We are here to continue—
[Translation]
50th Anniversary of the Festival franco-ontarien
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we marked a historic moment: the 50th anniversary of the Festival franco-ontarien. For half a century, this festival has been proudly celebrating the culture, language and identity of francophones in Ontario through music. It is an opportunity to bring together different generations, showcase local and foreign artists and celebrate the wealth of our francophone heritage.
I thank the organizers of the Festival franco-ontarien for their leadership and the many organizations in Ontario, like the Mouvement d'implication francophone d'Orléans, or MIFO, in my beautiful community of Orléans, that work tirelessly on promoting the francophonie in all its forms.
For this special year, we applaud the festival's exceptional journey and wish it many more years of success. Happy 50th anniversary to the Festival franco-ontarien. See you all at Major's Hill park until June 14.
[English]
Canadian Energy Sector
Mr. Speaker, after ten years of Liberal anti-energy laws, over 176 billion dollars' worth of energy projects have been scrapped. Bills such as Bill C-69, the so-called “no new energy pipelines” law, and Bill C-48, along with the job-killing carbon tax, have created so much red tape and uncertainty that energy companies will not even invest here anymore.
In the B.C. interior, countless families depend on the oil and gas sector to put food on the table. Even our regional airports rely on flight revenues tied to energy-related travel and investment, but because of stalled pipelines, investment and job creation have dried up, not just in my riding, but across Canada.
Steel Industry
Mr. Speaker, this week, a Hamilton steel mill permanently shut down, putting 153 people out of work. Donald Trump's 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum are unjustified and illegal, and are now impacting the livelihoods of Canadian families.
Everyone in Hamilton knows somebody who works in the steel industry. There are 10,000 Hamilton workers who are directly employed in steelmaking and another 40,000 who are employed in associated industries. These are good-paying, Canadian jobs that are supporting hard-working Canadian families, and they are now at risk because of Donald Trump's misguided, illegal trade war with Canada.
While discussions with the U.S. are ongoing, all retaliatory measures are on the table. We are taking steps to stop the dumping of cheap foreign steel, and we are investing in new Canadian markets. I want to assure the workers in Hamilton and across Canada that our government is doing everything possible to fight back, protect jobs and support Canadian steel.
Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are struggling with the ever-increasing cost of groceries, record food bank use and rising unemployment. However, one group of Canadians is not struggling at all, namely the Liberal-friendly insiders at GC Strategies.
This two-person company billed taxpayers for $64 million over 106 contracts, often for work that was never done. However, GC Strategies did not act alone. According to the recent Auditor General report, under the Liberal government, security requirements were not enforced, contracts were not monitored and federal organizations did not follow procurement policies. While Kristian Firth and Darren Anthony were getting rich, their Liberal accomplices were getting promoted to the front benches of the House of Commons.
On Monday, will the Prime Minister support our Conservative motion to put taxpayers first and get Canadians their money back?
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, building safe communities and neighbourhoods takes a collective effort, and our Liberal government is making positive progress by working together with all levels of governments and partners.
Through our investment and collaborative approach, in the Peel region, there was a 60% drop in auto thefts in 2024 and an additional 45% decrease in the first quarter of 2025. Just this week, Peel Regional Police and CBSA seized over 50 million dollars' worth of cocaine in one of the largest drug busts in their history, a clear message that crime will not be tolerated in our communities.
However, more work needs to be done. Our government is taking community safety very seriously. That is why our government is strengthening laws, cracking down on repeat violent offenders and taking action on auto theft, home invasions, human smuggling and drug trafficking. We will continue to show leadership by working with our communities to build safer neighbourhoods for all Canadians.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, Israel has the right to defend itself, including by disarming Tehran's nuclear program. We should hope that this is the end of the regime's nuclear program and that the great Persian people can now rise up to reclaim their country from the totalitarian regime. Sadly, anti-Semitism has been on the rise here in Canada.
Can the government please tell us the extra steps it will take to protect Canada's Jewish community from anti-Semites, who might use the recent events as an excuse for violence?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is important on two fronts. It is important to remember, always, that Israel has the right to defend itself. Israel has the right to continue to make sure that it is safe and secure.
At the same time, the government is committed to taking action against the scourge that is anti-Semitism every day in our world. We will continue to stand up and defend Jews in this community to make sure they are safe.
Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, in the Auditor General's scathing report on Tuesday, we learned that the Liberals failed to put in place the necessary safety procedures and controls to safeguard Canadian taxpayers' dollars.
The result was $64 million to the arrive scam's primary contractor, GC Strategies. Canadians work so hard for their money. When will that money be returned?
Will everyone in the House vote with Conservatives to get Canadians' money back?
Mr. Speaker, we thank the Auditor General for her work. Obviously, we can all agree in the House that misconduct of any kind in our procurement processes is completely unacceptable. It is notable that we have terminated all contracts and suspended security clearance for GC Strategies. An investigation and assessment were undertaken, and GC Strategies was deemed ineligible for receiving government contracts for seven years. This matter has been referred to the RCMP, and the legal matter is ongoing.
Mr. Speaker, we hear those same talking points over and over again. However, the only guarantee we can have that taxpayer dollars will actually be protected is a change in leadership. Liberals keep getting rich. Canadians keep getting the tax bill.
Why, in all heavens, were the ministers promoted instead of fired?
Mr. Speaker, I know that all of us can agree in the House that misconduct of any kind in our procurement process is completely unacceptable. That is why our government has acted on this matter. An investigation was undertaken by OSIC. The company in question has been deemed ineligible for receiving any federal government contracts for seven years, and the matter has been referred to the RCMP. Legal action is ongoing.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this week, the Auditor General released a scathing report on ArriveCAN's main contractor, GC Strategies. This two-person company, which is now under investigation by the RCMP, received a staggering $64 million. The worst part is that we do not even know if it did any work.
The Conservatives have introduced a motion to ban this company for life. Will all members of the House vote to ensure that Canadian taxpayers get their money back?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to repeat this as many times as the members opposite would like me to. Our government has taken a firm stance on this matter and has said that any misconduct of any kind within our procurement processes is completely unacceptable. We have made improvements to the integrity of the system, based on the Auditor General's report and recommendations. We have made sure that GC Strategies can no longer receive any government contracts for seven years, and the matter has been referred to the RCMP for legal action.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for a seven-year suspension, but a lifetime suspension. The budget was $80,000. The actual cost was $64 million, paid to only two people. That is 800 times the planned budget. It makes no sense. The taxpayers of Beauce and Canada are the ones stuck with the bill.
Why do the Liberals reward politicians instead of punishing them?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I know that all of us in the House can agree on one thing, which is that the integrity of our procurement processes is of utmost importance. It is taxpayers' money that is in question, and we take that matter very seriously. We have conducted an investigation through the office of supplier integrity and compliance. They deemed GC Strategies to be ineligible to receive any federal government contracts for seven years, and we have referred this matter to the RCMP for legal action.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that is yet another question with no real answer.
What would happen to a Canadian family if it spent 800 times its budget on housing and living expenses? It would go bankrupt. What would happen if a private company exceeded its budget by 800 times? An executive would be fired. Why is it acceptable for Ottawa to spend Canadians' money without any concrete results? Families in Beauce deserve much better.
Will the Liberals vote in favour of our motion to strike GC Strategies from the list, yes or no?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, misconduct of any kind in our procurement process is completely unacceptable. This is why we are making changes to ensure the integrity of our system. We have made sure GC Strategies has been terminated from all contracts and that its security clearance has been suspended. The investigation of OSIC has deemed it ineligible for any federal government contracts for seven years. The matter has been referred to the RCMP, and legal action is under way.
[Translation]
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, biodiversity acts and regulations, the Official Languages Act, the Income Tax Act and the Canada Labour Code are all acts and regulations that the minister would be allowed to suspend arbitrarily thanks to Bill C‑5.
At the very least, does not the entire framework for regulating economic activity in Quebec and Canada deserve thorough study in committee?
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois knows full well that we just finished an election campaign during which the Prime Minister, our party leader, asked Canadians for a clear mandate to accelerate projects of national interest. That is precisely what the bill before the House of Commons will do.
However, to suggest that the government would scale back environmental impact assessments and consultations with indigenous peoples is false. We will do the opposite of that through a mechanism that allows for agreements with the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the law says.
With all due respect, Quebeckers seem to have voted out of fear of the Conservative agenda. They decided to go that way, and it even cost us some seats. Now the Liberal government is taking the Conservative agenda and implementing it. That is not what Quebeckers voted for.
I assume that all opposition parties want to work. Why not allow elected officials, who all want to work hard, to do some serious and thorough work in committee on a bill that will fundamentally transform the regulatory and economic fabric of Quebec and Canada?
Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that I do not agree with my friend from the Bloc Québécois when he says that we have adopted a purely Conservative policy.
On page 1 of our election platform, on the very first page, we talk about building one Canadian economy out of 13 and ensuring that we can once again carry out major projects that are in the national interest. That is why NDP, Conservative and even CAQ premiers agree with this approach.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is imposing a gag order on Bill C‑5, which would give him the power to make decisions about energy projects by order in council, with no regard for Quebec or social licence. He is also rushing the passage of Bill C‑4. He is appointing ministers without a mandate letter stating his intentions, and he has ended Justin Trudeau's tradition of answering all questions in question period on Wednesdays. In short, there is no debate, no transparency and as little accountability as possible.
Do the Liberals really think this is what Quebeckers expect from a minority government?
Mr. Speaker, I see that our friends in the Bloc Québécois miss our former leader and prime minister, Justin Trudeau. I think that is important to note.
On the contrary, we have introduced a bill in Parliament that specifically enables the Government of Canada, in partnership with the provinces, territories and indigenous peoples, to build major projects that will drive the Canadian economy forward and allow for significant development in renewable energy.
That is what Canadians expect from this Parliament.
[English]
Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General confirmed what we already knew: $64 million was handed to a two-person company with no proof of work done, no security clearances, no deliverables and no competition. This was about enriching Liberal insiders, not about serving Canadians.
Will everyone in this House stand with taxpayers and vote for our Conservative motion to get Canadians their money back?
Mr. Speaker, we can all agree in this House that the integrity of our procurement processes is of utmost importance. Certainly, taxpayers are owed some answers.
This company has been referred to the RCMP, and legal action is under way. We have also ensured that it can no longer enter into any contracts with the federal government for seven years.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal way is that the harder someone betrays Canadians, the more their friends reward them.
The Auditor General laid out a staggering failure. Some 82% of GC Strategies contracts brought no value for Canadian taxpayer money, yet Liberal ministers were all promoted under the new Liberal elitist Prime Minister.
Canadians are paying the price for corruption while insiders cash cheques for doing nothing. Is this corruption the Liberal definition of merit-based appointments?
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to repeat for my colleagues again that GC Strategies has been deemed ineligible by the office of supplier integrity and compliance to enter into any contracts with the federal government. The matter has been referred to the RCMP. Legal action is under way.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General confirmed that GC Strategies, a two-person company, was paid $64 million by the Liberal government. In nearly half the cases, there is not even proof that any work was done. Departments ignored the rules and approved payments without deliverables. That is not just mismanagement; it is a betrayal of taxpayers.
Will the Liberal government do the right thing and support our Conservative motion to finally get Canadians their money back?
Mr. Speaker, misconduct of any kind in our procurement process is completely unacceptable. We agree with the members opposite. That is exactly why we have acted on this matter. We have conducted an investigation and assessment. The company in question has been deemed ineligible for any federal government contracts for seven years. The matter has been referred to the RCMP for legal action.
Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals were stumbling around clueless, GC Strategies cashed in. The ministers responsible were not fired; they were promoted. Let that sink in: failure led to reward. This is a pattern with the Liberals: Connected consultants profit, ministers fail upward and Canadians are left holding the bill.
Why is it that with the Liberals, the more someone wastes, the more they win, unless they are a Canadian taxpayer?
Mr. Speaker, misconduct of any kind in our procurement process is completely unacceptable. That is exactly why we have acted on this matter and ensured there is an investigation. The company in question is no longer eligible to enter into contracts with the federal government. The matter has been referred to the RCMP. Legal action is ongoing.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General found no proof of work in nearly half of the contracts awarded to GC Strategies. The Liberals gave millions to GC Strategies to do literally nothing.
Taxpayers deserve a refund and deserve it now, so will the Liberals support our Conservative motion to get taxpayers their money back, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we agree, as I have said, that the integrity of our procurement process is of the utmost importance to Canadians. That is exactly why we have deemed this company ineligible to enter into contracts for the next seven years. We have referred the matter to the RCMP. Legal action is ongoing.
Mr. Speaker, do members know what it is called when a company submits an invoice and accepts payment for work that was not done? It is called fraud. It is called theft.
Under the Liberals, GC Strategies robbed taxpayers for millions. Will the Liberals finally take responsibility and vote with the Conservatives to get taxpayers their money back?
Mr. Speaker, of course, misconduct in our procurement process, at any moment, is completely unacceptable. That is exactly why our government has acted on this matter. We have done so responsibly. We have ensured the integrity of the system. We have ensured this company can no longer do any business with the federal government for seven years. The matter has been referred to the RCMP and legal action is ongoing.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, since yesterday, the government has been trying to give us lightweight solutions to a problem that has cost taxpayers a lot of money: the ArriveCAN app. The Liberals seem to have made a habit of lighting fires, trying to put them out and then patting themselves on the back for a job well done.
The most recent example is the $64‑million fiasco involving public funds given to GC Strategies, a two-person company operating out of a basement.
Will the government support the Conservative motion, issue a lifetime ban on GC Strategies and go get Canadians' money back?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise again and answer this question. Obviously, I have done so numerous times in this question period, and I am happy to do so continuously for the remaining time that we have together today.
GC Strategies is no longer able to enter into government contracts for up to seven years. That is an investigation that we triggered. The matter has been referred to the RCMP and legal action is ongoing.
[Translation]
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers did not give the Liberals a blank cheque. They elected a minority government.
However, by invoking closure on Bill C-5, the Liberals are essentially asking for a blank cheque. They want a blank cheque to govern by decree, to decide everything related to energy projects and to impose pipelines on Quebeckers without Quebec's consent and without a serious environmental assessment. They also want free rein to pass the bill without debate or study.
Will the Liberals respect Quebeckers and let Parliament do its work?
Mr. Speaker, the message we received from Quebeckers is reflected in the confidence they placed in 44 of our Liberal colleagues here in the House who speak up on behalf of Quebec every single day. They understand the urgency of the situation with regard to our economy and the importance of prioritizing job-creating projects across Quebec and Canada in order to build one economy, not 13.
Long live Canada.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5, which the government is trying to push through using closure, is an insult to indigenous peoples. The Liberals want to give themselves the power to make all energy project decisions by fiat. They are first going to approve projects in Ottawa and then, when the decision is made and cannot be undone, they are going to pretend to consult indigenous peoples. It is a charade and a direct violation of indigenous people's right to self-determination, to their territorial sovereignty and to reconciliation.
Will the Liberals step back, respect first nations, Inuit and Métis and engage in meaningful dialogue?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the concerns raised by indigenous leaders across the country. Their voices matter. That is why we are investing in real consultation, with $40 million to support indigenous engagement, in addition to establishing an indigenous advisory council. This legislation would be an economic game-changer for indigenous peoples.
Marine Transportation
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he wants to “build, baby, build”, but he cannot even get the B.C. NDP to build Canadian ships for Canadian taxpayers in Canada. Instead, the Liberal government is letting BC Ferries send good-paying union jobs to a Chinese shipyard, even as China punishes our exporters with tariffs. What happened to “elbows up”?
How is the Liberal government going to build one economy out of 13 if it cannot even convince B.C. to support Canadian steel, Canadian infrastructure and Canadian workers?
Mr. Speaker, I share the opposition's concern regarding the procurement practices across all levels of government, especially at a time when Canadian workers are battered by tariffs from China and the United States. Now, more than ever, we must support Canadian workers and industries, while also working in close partnership with our allies and trading partners.
Of note, this particular project was not undertaken by the federal government. BC Ferries is entirely under provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, the government might like to put its head in the sand, but Canadian workers are struggling, and China is deliberately targeting them. Canadian canola, seafood and pork have all been hit with punishing tariffs, and the government is standing by while a critical infrastructure contract goes to a Chinese state enterprise.
China uses trade as a weapon and detains our citizens. Is it the Liberals' economic strategy to let China take our jobs, jail Canadians and punish our exporters while Canadian industries get left out in the cold?
Mr. Speaker, we have important legislation, the one Canadian economy act, that is focusing on creating one economy out of 13, which means Canadian goods, Canadian services, mobility, people working across the country with very little restrictions, and reducing trade barriers. When it comes to this government, it is Canada first, always.
Mr. Speaker, thousands of good-paying Canadian jobs were lost this week when BC Ferries announced the purchase of four new ships not from shipyards here in Canada, but from shipyards owned by the Chinese Communist Party. This is despite BC Ferries receiving more than $36 million in taxpayer money from the Liberal government, taxpayer money that is now subsidizing jobs in China, a country that has kidnapped Canadian citizens and has unjustly tariffed our farmers and our fishermen.
Will the Liberal government stop pretending it is helpless, show leadership and demand that these ships be built in the best country in the world, right here in Canada?
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, having no pipelines means no jobs for hard-working employees at Evraz steel in Regina. How can the Liberals get pipelines built if they are looking for a consensus? What does consensus mean? Will they use Canadian steel to build these pipelines?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and 13 premiers got together and agreed on five criteria to get projects of national interest built. If the hon. member across the aisle wants to get people working in Saskatchewan, he should support the one Canadian economy bill.
Mr. Speaker, can members imagine driving to work every day wondering if that is the day they are going to get laid off? For 10 years, the Liberals have had antidevelopment policies, like Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the emissions cap and the industrial carbon tax. These hard-working men and women deserve a much better answer than that.
Will the government be like the old government? Is the new guy the same as the old guy, with no pipelines? Pipelines deserve to be built in this country. They run our economy. Will the Liberals use Canadian steel in pipelines?
Mr. Speaker, as I said, if the hon. member wants to get people working again, the one Canadian economy act is designed to get projects of national interest built. That would get steelworkers back to work. That would get aluminum workers back to work. That would get forest products industries back to work. Please support the bill.
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, this week, the Prime Minister announced that Canada's new government is rebuilding, rearming and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces, and with the increase in defence investment, Canada will achieve NATO's 2% target. Canada will lead with values the world respects, the resources the world wants and an economy that leads the G7.
Can the President of the Treasury Board share with the House why these investments are so important?
Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the member for Prescott—Russell—Cumberland to the House of Commons.
This new government has done what Conservatives never could. We now have a plan to meet our NATO 2% commitment half a decade earlier than scheduled. We promised Canadians the new Liberal government would take bold and decisive actions. It is a promise made and promise kept.
Oil and Gas Industry
Mr. Speaker, economists and most bankers know that investments go to countries where they are welcomed. For 10 years, the Liberal government has sent clear messages that investments in oil pipelines are not welcome in Canada unless they are destined for the United States at a discount. What is next, Canada's mineral resources?
Surely the Prime Minister knows that no one is building a pipeline in Canada with Liberal anti-energy laws in the books, or is it the Prime Minister's plan to keep Canadian oil and gas in the ground?
Mr. Speaker, in Saskatoon, the Prime Minister and 13 premiers got together to talk about how we build projects of national interest. Those projects of national interest will include roads, pipelines, transmission lines and renewable resources. If the hon. members on the other side of the House wants to see many projects built, they should support the bill.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, diversifying our trade has been the goal of the current Liberal government, but an article posted last night by The Economist states that the United States will be granted first right of refusal on Canadian minerals.
Before going to Washington, Mr. Carney asked officials to list the Canadian products that Mr. Trump needs the most. Rare earth elements and critical minerals topped that list. It looks like the Liberals want to give first right of refusal on our critical minerals, limiting our ability to sell to the world and to diversify our economy.
Is the Prime Minister negotiating guaranteed access to Canada's minerals to United States—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I would just remind members not to use other members' proper names.
The hon. Minister of Energy has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, mining is crucial to our economy, and with Canada facing American tariffs, we must support mine workers. That is why we will speed up permitting of new mines by cutting red tape and approving projects within two years. This will be in Canada's national interest. This will make Canada stronger. This will make us more sovereign.
Oil and Gas Industry
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have flip-flopped on pipelines more than a fish out of water. The Prime Minister claims he wants to make Canada an energy superpower, but talk is cheap. If he is serious, he must repeal a decade's worth of the Liberals' anti-energy laws: the no new pipelines act, toss it; the shipping ban, send it out to sea; the job-killing oil and gas production cap, scrap it; and the industrial carbon tax, kick it to the curb.
When will the Prime Minister realize that we will never get a new pipeline built in this country without repealing the disastrous Liberal anti-energy laws?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear, and we have been clear: To be an energy superpower, we need to make sure that we are low-risk, low-cost and low-carbon.
When Conservatives were in government, they did not get projects built, because they did not do environmental assessments and they did not consult with indigenous peoples. If the Conservatives want to see things built, and built properly, I hope that they will support us in working on projects of national interest that support our country.
Mr. Speaker, that sounds a lot like the cheap talk that I mentioned. The Prime Minister said that he will support a pipeline if there is consensus, but his environment minister is spinning an entirely different story.
This week, I asked her point-blank to define “consensus”, and she shrugged her shoulders and said, “what consensus”. I am happy to tell the minister what it means. Polling shows that three-quarters of Canadians support an east-west pipeline, with premiers' also backing the idea. If that is not consensus, what is?
Will the Prime Minister set the record straight, define consensus for Canadians and tell us who, if anyone, holds a veto over a new pipeline project?
Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to remember the conversation on Monday evening, he will remember what I actually said, which was that we saw an amazing moment of Canadians' coming together, with premiers and our Prime Minister all talking about how we can do what Canadians have asked us to do, which is to build a strong Canada. The division we see is from the Conservatives.
We are going to work in favour of what Canadians want to see, which is to build a strong, united, sovereign Canada.
Mr. Speaker, because of the government's economic failures, Newfoundland and Labrador is once again dependent on equalization payments from the west. Newfoundland's employment has been entangled with the west for decades. We understand that when the west does better, all Canada does better, but in order for the west to succeed, it needs to get its resources to market.
Mr. Speaker, I will echo what so many of my colleagues have said today: We are focused on building the economy in Canada, working with premiers in provinces and territories and building a strong Canada so that provinces like mine and the member opposite's, Newfoundland and Labrador, which is rich in natural resources, will be part of the projects that we will get built in record time and that will benefit everyone in this country.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of failed drug policies, increasing deaths and revolving-door prisons, the soft-on-crime Liberals still do not get it. Another drug bust in Williams Lake has resulted in a repeat offender's being caught with so-called safe supply. He was arrested in the morning and released the very same day.
If the minister will not take repeat offenders off the street for good, will he at least stop giving them free drugs to sell?
Mr. Speaker, the strong borders act would combat organized crime, protect the integrity of our immigration system and equip law enforcement with the tools it needs to strengthen our border. Bill C-2 would also contribute to our crackdown on fentanyl trafficking with important measures to support law enforcement, such as improving inter-agency intelligence sharing and empowering law enforcement to intercept and search shipments suspected of smuggling illegal drugs.
Mental Health and Addictions
Mr. Speaker, Tyler Dunlap was 17 years old; Sidney McIntyre-Starko, 18; Evelina Baldelli, 16; Kamilah Sword, 14; Elliot Eurchuk, 16; Mathis Boivin, 15; Darian Clayton-Fleet, 18; Nikkia Sugar, 15; Katherine McParland, 19; Logan Williams, 16; Chayton Point, 13; and Brianna MacDonald, 13.
The leading cause of death for youth in my province of British Columbia is overdose. These are kids, and they are dying. If this is not a crisis, what is?
Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government takes the issue incredibly seriously. The fact of the matter is that the global rise of fentanyl has torn through our communities and our families. That is why the government has committed to hiring 1,000 new CBSA workers and 1,000 new RCMP personnel to take the fight to the bad guys.
Public Safety
Even the mayor of Vaughan and the chief of York Regional Police are calling for an end to catch-and-release madness. Would any Liberal who thinks this is acceptable kindly explain this to the residents of King—Vaughan?
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the new government is committed, like I said in the previous question, to taking the fight to the bad guys. We are committed to hiring 1,000 new CBSA workers and 1,000 new RCMP personnel.
This comes back to the strong borders act. I expect the hon. member to support us in making sure that the police services have access to the resources they need.
Firearms
Mr. Speaker, it has been five years since the Liberal government pushed through its order in council targeting responsible firearms owners with a confiscation scheme. Zero individuals have had their firearms bought back, yet gun crime has gone up 116%. As a person with an RPAL, which, by the way, if the minister still does not know, is a restricted possession and acquisition licence, I am baffled by the statistics.
Why will the Liberal government not focus on criminals, make our streets safe and leave our responsible firearms owners alone?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the firearms buyback program is a serious program to keep our communities safe. Some 12,000 weapons have already been bought back and 10,000 have been destroyed. The buyback program provides fair compensation to businesses, and soon to firearms owners.
We will be going to the RCMP depot soon to meet with members of the Canadian firearms program and to hear their concerns in order to implement the program as quickly as possible.
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the people of Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie often tell me how important it is to protect Canada in an increasingly dangerous world. From east to west, from the Arctic to Quebec, we have to deal with the global situation and create a strong Canada.
Can the Minister of National Defence share with the House the investments that the new government is making in defence?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie for his hard work. Our government has just presented a plan for the reconstruction, re-equipment and reinvestment in the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Prime Minister announced a generational investment of more than $9 billion, which means that we will meet NATO's spending target of 2% of GDP this year.
When it comes to an issue as important as Canada's defence and security, Canadians can trust their new government.
[English]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of the tired, old Liberals, the cost of housing has doubled, putting the dream of ever owning a home out of reach for so many Canadians. It has also aggravated the homelessness crisis, which, incidentally, the current housing minister, when he was the mayor of Vancouver, said he would eliminate.
Today, with 28,000 British Columbians without secure housing, many of them living on the streets, will the minister acknowledge that 10 years of big spending announcements and photo ops has failed to deliver real results for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I joined the government because we have a credible plan for affordable housing. We are building on the past success of the government in that regard. Our first measure includes a cut to the GST for new homeowners. We are also looking to launch “build Canada homes”, and we will be working alongside our municipalities to decrease development charges while making sure that municipalities remain whole.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, fishermen and farmers feed families. This season, Chinese tariffs on harvests from the land and the sea are impacting the livelihood of those who depend on markets in China. These tariffs are a direct result of the Liberal government's bungling of trade relations with China. The tariffs range from 25% on lobsters to 100% on canola.
My question for the Minister of International Trade is this: When can farmers and fishermen expect the Liberal government to fix the mess it has made so they can get relief from Chinese tariffs?
Mr. Speaker, we will always defend our national interest in the best interest of Canadians.
Last week, I sat down with the Minister of Commerce from China, Minister Wang, to talk about some of these issues that we are working though, whether it is canola, beef or pet food. These are some of the issues that came up at the table. We agreed to launch the JETC, the joint economic and trade commission, to work through some of these issues, because we know we need to continue to open new markets for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the minister to go to sea in a gale wind on a fishing boat or to get some dirt under his nails on a farm with our hard-working farmers. Clearly he has no respect for the people who toil to feed their family and everybody else's family, and who play such a crucial role in food security for Canada.
Will the minister get relief from Chinese tariffs, or are fishermen and farmers just collateral damage in a trade war that the Liberals do not know how to fight?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague across the aisle a repeat of what was said in the last answer: The fact is that Canada is working to protect workers.
Rather than slogans, misinformation and negativity, the Liberals are actually doing the work of opening dialogue actively on the ground, to ensure that the workers in Canada are protected. We will have Canadians' backs.
Mr. Speaker, the new government is working to build new economic and security relationships. One of the most important sectors of economic and export potential is defence. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister announced a $9.3-billion investment. This is a generational investment that will create thousands of jobs.
As part of the new government's plan to expand into new export markets, can the Minister of International Trade tell the House how he plans to help diversify defence and trade?
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Mississauga Centre on his recent election win.
I recently attended CANSEC, Canada's largest defence trade show, and it had over 40 international delegations present. It was an opportunity for me to meet with industry leaders, connect with international delegations, and see world-class innovation first-hand. The industry supports over 200,000 jobs in communities across the country: Mississauga, Brampton and many others, including Halifax.
We have what the world needs, and I look forward to showcasing Canada's aerospace and defence companies in global markets to grow exports and create jobs here at home.
[Translation]
Sport
Mr. Speaker, almost every major medical association has recognized physical activity as a primary solution for preventing and healing the vast majority of chronic illnesses in our society, including cancer, cardiac disease, lung disease, diabetes and so on.
Our country is more sedentary than ever. Our young people are moving less and less and hospitals are at a breaking point.
When will the government take a leadership role on physical activity so that we can shift to prevention instead of always waiting to treat illness?
Mr. Speaker, indeed, prevention is very important for our constituents. We will always work in collaboration with the health care sector to find what it takes to truly improve our health through sport.
We can be proud of all of our sport-related accomplishments. On average, I walk 8.2 kilometres a day. I am an example of health through movement.
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and Pierre Poilievre both want to roll out the red carpet for Prime Minister Modi to attend the G7 summit in Canada, knowing that Modi refused to co-operate with the RCMP in the investigation of the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar and other homicides on Canadian soil.
The Prime Minister will not say if he knew that Jagmeet Singh's life was in danger or that he was under surveillance by gang members suspected of working for the Indian government. Poilievre's excuse is that he refused to get the security clearance, but the Prime Minister has none.
Will the Prime Minister rescind the invitation and demand India's full co-operation in the Nijjar murder and other cases?
Mr. Speaker, the member has raised several issues at the same time. Let me just say the G7 is a huge opportunity for Canada to exercise leadership on the world stage. Our sovereignty, our security and prosperity are tied to global security.
At the same time, Canada is a country of the rule of law. We have cases before the RCMP. We will continue to have those investigations. We will continue to ensure that Canadians are safe at home and abroad.
Mr. Speaker, Israel has bombed dozens of sites in Iran, including residential homes, causing hundreds of casualties, including children. Netanyahu is leading the region into yet another war in which civilians will pay the price. Canadians with loved ones throughout the Middle East are terrified of what comes next. We need de-escalation, diplomacy and rule of law.
Will Canada condemn this latest escalation and finally commit to real nuclear disarmament, or will they stand with the Conservatives against international law?
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying Israel has the right, absolutely, to defend itself within the bounds of international law. At the very same time, we have a responsibility to de-escalate this situation. Our minister has been very clear that this escalation will not help.
We have several priorities. We want to ensure hostages are released. We want to ensure humanitarian aid is delivered. We want an immediate ceasefire. Canada will exercise every diplomatic tool we have to ensure that peace, in our ability, is brought to the fore.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114 and the motion adopted by the House on Thursday, June 5, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House.
Questions on the Order Paper
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before question period, Bill C-5 is the opposite of inherent clarity and certainty. The Prime Minister and the minister both claim the projects that provincial and territorial premiers submit to federal politicians, who will then themselves determine whether they are in the national interest, will be approved within two years, except that there is not a single concrete timeline in this bill.
This is familiar because it is the same claim the Liberals made about Bill C-69, but they included much political interference and many tools for the commissioner or politicians to start, stop, extend and restart the reviews ad infinitum. There were no concrete timelines in Bill C-69 either, but in Bill C-5, the words “two years” literally do not exist.
Since the Liberals claim the bill is a reaction to U.S. energy dominance and economic threats so that they can start, just now, trying to make Canada stronger, they should also look at the U.S. timelines to make sure Canada can compete and beat the U.S. to approvals and to market. I am sorry to say that two years was definitely competitive with the IRA three years ago, when Conservatives first called for the Liberals to match it, and it still is overall, but the U.S. now has emergency permitting procedures that approve nuclear, oil and gas, mining and uranium projects on federal lands of between 16 and 28 days. Its overall regulatory process is also set to be expedited. If the Prime Minister says this is a crisis, he should match his action to this crisis.
Bill C-5 does not impose two-year timelines by law in Canada, but if policy decisions afterward do execute the two-year timetable Liberals promise, that may end up keeping Canada lagging behind anyway. I think it is safe to say that Liberals always and often do too little, too late. The process is entirely secretive; that means there is no clarity, timeline, certainty or trust in Bill C-5.
Indigenous leaders from all different perspectives are already raising concerns. I have to say that it was quite astounding to watch a colleague, one I admire very much, the former Enoch chief, Treaty 6 grand chief and current Conservative MP for Edmonton Northwest, question the minister about whether he understands and has consulted with indigenous rights holders. By the way, I come from Treaty 6 territory. The minister named important advocacy groups for indigenous people but quite obviously either did not know or could not affirm that he has consulted with actual rights holders and titleholders. Even though one of the factors is to advance the interests of indigenous peoples, he has not talked to them yet. He is a decision-maker, by his own law, and courts have been clear about the duty for decision-makers to be at the table with indigenous leaders and to make a dynamic effort to address and mitigate adverse impacts. I am not sure that the set-up of an indigenous advisory council will stand up to challenge. All Canadians should be concerned about this.
Meanwhile, Canadians wait, projects stay stalled in the queue, billions in investments sit idle and families lose out on good jobs because of Liberal delays, red tape and uncertainty. Bill C-5 does not fix the real problems; rather, it gives a way for a select, politically hand-picked list to circumvent all the laws and policies the Liberals previously, and elsewhere, argued are just critical and are the most crucial for the environment, economies, communities and indigenous people. These are laws that the Liberals howl about any time Conservatives dare to criticize, question or try to improve them. The list includes the Fisheries Act; the Indian Act; the International River Improvements Act; the National Capital Act; the Canadian Navigable Waters Act; the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994; section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act; the Canada Marine Act; division 3 of part 7 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; the Species at Risk Act; the Canadian Energy Regulator Act; the migratory bird sanctuary regulations; the Dominion water power regulations; wildlife area regulations; the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations; and the Liberals' own migratory bird regulations, 2022.
Let us be honest. If the Liberals now want to ignore these laws for their preferred projects, that confirms two things. First, these policies have stopped development for years. Second, even if the Liberals claim they will approve projects in two years, that claim matters only if the projects survive legal challenges after approval, so the proponents can build them on their own timeline and on their own dime.
What happens afterwards is also crucial. What happens when activists challenge the approvals and exemptions in court? From the list I just read, I dare say that there will be more than a few Canadian advocacy groups of all different kinds concerned about this plan. What happens when those approvals and exemptions are challenged? What happens when litigation and the weaponization of bylaws and laws from other provinces and other municipalities halt progress again? What will the Liberals do then? Will they attack their own laws or retreat and refuse to enforce federal jurisdiction, as they have done before, deliberately, to kill pipelines and other projects?
Bill C-5 raises more questions than answers, and Canadians deserve the truth. This bill sets up a process that will help a few and leave most behind.
On Wednesday, the natural resources minister said, “I think what we said is that we do not pick the projects.” However, he also said, “projects bubble up from consultations between the federal government, provincial government, indigenous peoples”. When I asked the same question again, about the ministers and cabinet as decision-makers, the minister said, “the politicians do not pick the projects.” However, it is clear from public communications after meetings with premiers that they are, and Bill C-5 clearly says:
If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project is in the national interest, the Governor in Council—
It is otherwise known as cabinet.
—may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend Schedule 1 to add the name of the project and a brief description of it, including the location where it is to be carried out.
Well, that language confirms that the minister plays a direct role and is the decision-maker. The minister can also remove projects from the list:
If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project named in Schedule 1 is no longer in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend that Schedule to delete the name and the description of the project.
That is some certainty. Despite the minister's claims, Bill C-5 shows that political discretion, his discretion, decides which projects stay or go, which project people win and which lose. Already one wonders whether the responsible minister, after my engagement with him on Wednesday night, actually even knows what is being proposed in his own bill.
Again, there is a public list of major resource and infrastructure projects ready to go, real projects with real proponents that could be deemed in the national interest and fast-tracked immediately. The 28 mining and energy proposals sitting in front of the regulators could be fast-tracked right now.
It is also curious that one of the acts the Liberal government could decide to sidestep through Bill C-5 is the Conflict of Interest Act. Of course, the Prime Minister refused to disclose his own conflicts or where he paid his taxes, and his businesses preferred to invest in pipelines and energy in the U.S. and overseas, not in Canada. Already, this sure looks like the same scandal-plagued, backroom-dealing Liberals, does it not?
It should also concern all Canadians that the plan in Bill C-5 is for most of the specifics to be dealt with through policy and regulations afterwards, not transparently and clearly in the law: more inherent uncertainty. This bill also mixes public and private infrastructure, while the ministers will not give details about the projects. Canadians would be wise to consider the lack of distinction and whether the Liberals will continue their state corporate financing schemes that always put taxpayers at risk while insiders benefit.
Canadians do not want backroom deals. They want a system that works. They want government to clear the path for Canadian responsible resource development by Canadian workers with Canadian materials.
The Liberals also keep talking about the need for consensus on projects, and they mean especially for pipelines. However, neither they nor Bill C-5 defines what that involves. Is it consensus from the anti-pipeline environment and culture ministers? Is it consensus from half the anti-energy Liberals who are still in the Liberal cabinet while they try to sound like Conservatives and are actually diametrically opposed to what they have said and done for a decade? I mean, it is amazing they can stand here and look at us with straight faces and do that.
The Liberals claim they want consensus, but Canadians know they do not even have it in their own cabinet, and Bill C-5 sets out cabinet as the decision-makers. Is it consensus from all provinces, even though some have already said no before and are saying no again, even though interprovincial pipelines for export are indisputably federal jurisdiction?
The Liberal government previously failed to enforce federal jurisdiction and the rule of law, and let activists and other levels of government weaponize laws and bylaws against proponents that already had approval. That failure is exactly what forced the private sector proponent for TMX to abandon its attempts to build, because the federal government did not use its tools to give legal, political and jurisdictional certainty for the private sector proponent to go ahead, even after the government approved it after risking it, ended up buying it and then created a costly, delayed, nationalized project. It was a dangerous signal to all investors that Canada is a place where the private sector cannot build and government will always rely on taxpayers.
Are the Liberals aware that there is already a very strong consensus among everyday Canadians everywhere across the country that Canada needs more pipelines? It has been that way for a long time, but it is growing. It is higher than ever before. The latest data shows 79% of Canadians overall, and guess what. Of Quebeckers, 86% want more pipelines for national energy security and resilience. A supermajority of Canadians are in consensus, so it is time for the Liberals to stop delaying, dithering and dodging if they really mean all their suddenly new and plagiarized words about wanting Canada to be an energy superpower.
Canadians can be forgiven for skepticism about the broad categories for national interest projects that the premiers pushed the Prime Minister and ministers to agree on. On the western Arctic energy corridor, Conservatives have always fought for northerners to make decisions, to get more revenue from resource development and to increase Canada's defence and security capabilities in the north, but the Liberals banned unleashing Arctic energy unilaterally from a different country and indefinitely. They also imposed massive antidevelopment areas that keep northerners from benefiting from their own natural wealth in a place where there is a humanitarian, housing and food crisis and few opportunities for self-sufficiency that are not related to responsible resource development, if only the government would let them develop resources.
As for the eastern energy partnership, these exact Liberals used political interference, changing goalposts and conditions never seen before or since, to force the proponent, which had spent $1 billion, to abandon the nation-building pipeline that would have linked Canada economically and physically for self-sufficiency, self-reliance and national unity. They killed that east-to-west pipeline even though private investors offered to fund it entirely. The pipeline would have connected Canadian energy from coast to coast for self-sufficiency, and they interfered to kill it because of political pressure, even though it too was a proposal strictly in federal jurisdiction.
Why should anyone believe them now? Maybe what they actually mean is connecting power among the Atlantic provinces, to which Conservatives say that the natural resources committee told the government to build interties in 2017. It did not, and then it tried to study that all over again just a few months ago before Christmas. Do members know what my advice is? Why do the Liberals not just try to get the really simple things done first?
As for a critical minerals pathway, in 2022, these same Liberals announced a critical minerals strategy. How many new mines were approved from it? There were zero. For example, Canada still does not export a single teaspoon of lithium, none, while global demand rises and China dominates the global production value and supply chains. In 2024, lithium demand rose 30%, but Canada could not provide it because mines in Canada take up to 25 years from concept to being shovel-ready under the Liberals. Why should Canadians think that 2025's critical minerals pathway will be different?
Is the next stage nuclear? Premiers from all across the country have called nuclear critical to Canada's energy future. Conservatives agree, but the Liberals have still not given a straight answer. Do all nuclear projects qualify for investment tax credits to compete with the U.S., or will they only be accessible to a few, like SMRs and large-scale plants, which are also important?
If the Liberals are serious about one project, one review, why do they not fix the fundamental problem instead of the short-term Bill C-5 queue-jumping workaround? For nuclear, for which Canada has long been world-renowned and viewed as an expert by other countries, proposals already face two reviews: an impact assessment and a full review by the expert Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Why?
Why can there not be a one project, one review process like Conservatives have always promoted to get things built? Why could the minister not say definitively that the existing nuclear proposals stalled in review right now are in the national interest? Canada cannot attract investment when the rules shift and are vague and politicized. Businesses and workers need clarity, not confusion and more questions.
With respect to infrastructure for trade diversification, the government cannot even get roads built, and the culture minister said he does not think Canada needs anymore anyway. The Webequie supply road project, the Marten Falls community access road and the northern road link project, all backed and co-owned by indigenous communities, which would unlock the Ring of Fire, remain locked in the regulator right now.
Therefore, forgive Conservatives for suggesting that government cannot unleash critical minerals if it cannot even get the roads built to develop and transport them, and those roads are the place to start. It is time to stop talking and start approving. Canadians deserve leadership that actually sets attractive, competitive investment conditions so the private sector can build. The track record of the Liberals is the opposite.
There are projects that promise not only billions for our economy but also jobs for our communities, paycheques for Canadians and revenue for governments for infrastructure programs. Let us talk about some of those numbers.
Here are some of the projects that have been killed by the Liberals. The Grassy Point LNG project had a loss of $10 billion. The West Coast Canada LNG project had a loss of $25 billion. The Aurora LNG project had a loss of $28 billion. The Prince Rupert LNG project had a loss of $11 billion. The Pacific NorthWest LNG project had a loss of $11 billion. The Kwispaa LNG project had a loss of $18 billion. The Énergie Saguenay LNG project lost $4 billion.
The Frontier oil sands mine project had a loss of $20.6 billion. The Aspen oil sands project lost $2.6 billion. The Dunkirk oil sands SAGD project had a loss of $2.4 billion. The Muskwa SAGD oil sands project had a loss of $800 million; the Carmon Creek oil sands project had a loss of $3 billion. The Frederick Brook shale project had a loss of $700 million. The Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline project had a loss of $16 billion. The energy east pipeline had a loss of $15.7 billion. The northern gateway pipeline had a loss of $7.9 billion.
These are just a few examples of the lost $670 billion in cancelled or suspended projects on the same Liberals' watch. How can the Liberals really pretend to play team Canada when they have done everything possible to hold Canada back, especially when half the cabinet ministers are exactly the same as the old ones?
The Liberals have claimed falsely there was no business case for these projects, except there obviously was to the private sector proponents ready to make major long-term investment and to all the countries who want more Canada. The Liberals have let Canada's competitors win, and they have made Canadians lose. It is not only allies that have surpassed Canada and profited from it because of the Liberals; it is also our adversaries and hostile imperialist regimes that have out-gamed and outpaced the west, while politicians here dithered, virtue signalled and imposed policies and laws that kill Canadian jobs, Canadian businesses, Canadian supply chains and have made Canada more expensive, more vulnerable and weak.
In March 2022, Latvia said it “would wholeheartedly support” Canadian LNG to cut reliance on Russia. In June 2022, Ukraine said it was seeking Canadian LNG. Years into Russia's invasion, Canada still has no east coast LNG exports because their opponents abandoned the three proposals just in the last couple of years in Atlantic Canada, probably in part because the Liberals kept saying there was no business case. Some confidence the Liberals had in Canada. Ten years of elbows down and resources in the ground made Canada a target, and Conservatives warned them all along.
In August 2022, Germany begged for Canadian LNG, but the Liberals rejected that ally. Then they made a deal with Qatar, which hides Hamas and gets to rake in billions of dollars and drive in the desert with fancy sports cars and Rolex watches, while Canadians' food prices become the highest in the G7, unemployment rates skyrocket and the Liberals' plan to ban internal combustion engines. In December 2022, Poland looked to Canada for LNG to diversify energy sources, obviously for its national security, but it got nothing. In January 2023, Japan formally requested Canadian LNG. The Liberals refused. In February 2023, one month later, Japan's ambassador said, “The world is waiting for Canada”. The Liberals keep it waiting.
In May 2023, South Korea wanted Canadian LNG. The Liberals did nothing. In March 2024, Greece's prime minister said it absolutely wanted Canada's LNG, but Liberals refused to grant export licences. In April 2024, Poland's president said it would, of course, buy Canadian LNG, if Liberals made it available. In May 2024, the Philippines expressed interest in Canadian LNG trade and investment. There was nothing from the Liberals. In November 2024, Taiwan wanted to buy and invest in Canadian LNG, for obvious security reasons and self-reliance in its region, which all Canadians should care about. The Liberals blocked it.
In February 2025, Canada refused Japan's LNG request, also with another obvious security implication. After Canada had refused Japan's LNG request in 2023, this is what happened in February 2025: the U.S. delivered a multi-trillion dollar LNG deal to Japan instead. Mexico has now flown past Canada for LNG exports, while the U.S. is the top in the world.
The Liberals started with 15 LNG proposals in 2015. Only three were approved, and only one is operational now. By the way, the one that is operational now was approved by the former Conservative government and then delayed, put through another review and put at risk by the Liberals. We all are lucky that the proponent hung in. The Liberals should not delay on approving its second phase.
During that time, during the loss of 15 LNG proposals in Canada, the U.S. approved 28, with 12 approved, 8 under construction and 8 operational right now. The U.S. is now the top exporter in the world of LNG. Canada should have been ahead of it and a key partner for North American energy and national security, but the Liberals held Canada back with a distinctly elbows-down approach, except against Canadians. They sure gave us one or two or ten.
The Prime Minister says it is elbows up against the United States, but year after year, the same Liberals handed the Americans trillions of dollars from Canada on a silver platter. The U.S. must remain Canada's top ally, with safe borders and integrated security, and it is our top ally, but there is no doubt that because of the Liberals, the U.S. is also our top competitor, as a result of damaging Canadian domestic policy.
Conservatives have always been the consistent advocates for certainty, clarity and competitive, fast approvals to make Canada strong, self-reliant and united, so of course we hope—
An hon. member: Are you still going?
Shannon Stubbs: Yeah, I am still going. Mr. Speaker, of course we Conservatives hope the government can show Canadians that big, audacious, nation-building projects can get approved and built in competitive timelines by the private sector, not by taxpayers. We take seriously our constitutionally bound duty and role to oppose, but we also take seriously our job to propose solutions in the best interests of all Canadians, so I will now. The Liberals will need to fix Bill C-5 and make it transparent, clear and certain.
Here is what Liberal amendments must address and clarify: the definition of national interest; transparency of the project list; fulfillment of the duty to consult, not an advisory board; concrete two-year timelines and a timeline on the final decision by cabinet after a recommendation; application of the Conflict of Interest Act and screens for politically connected insider proponents; and clarity about the mandate for regulatory reviews to monitor and ensure actual deliverables are achieved on time and on budget, hopefully not on taxpayers' backs.
The real, fundamental, permanent solution for confidence and certainty in Canada is to repeal, or amend significantly, all of the acts and policies that the Liberals admit, through Bill C-5, are barriers to build, and not on a short-term, ad hoc, case-by-case basis, almost all of the details of which would be determined after the bill is law, through policy and regulations. That means politicians and bureaucrats would do all of this secretly and differently with each project. I guess that approach fits, since neither the Prime Minister nor the minister seem to be fond of answering questions from Canadians, or maybe just from women. They both constantly repeat that they will not negotiate in public about their interactions with the U.S., which, by the way, Canadians deserve to know about. Their MO already seems to be just like the old guys. It is backroom deals, and that is what Bill C-5 is.
The government should cut Canada's industrial carbon tax that punishes hard work, which none of our main competitors have. It smothers Canadian steel, aluminum, natural gas, food production and cement. It chokes competitiveness and forces companies to lay off workers, move operations abroad and leave towns behind. That is not “think globally, act locally” environmental stewardship; it's economic self-sabotage. A Canadian government should put Canadian workers, Canadian industries and Canadian producers first.
The government should set a clear six-month target, with a one-year maximum, to approve major projects, just as Conservatives proposed. Investors cannot wait 10 years for answers or keep giving the same information repeatedly to regulators to be denied or sent back to the beginning at any time. Delay means defeat. Projects need certainty. Workers need timelines. Resources need action. The government must stop talking and start approving. Canada needs a Canada-first, multi-use, national energy corridor and shovel-ready economic zones to unlock our potential, east to west, north to south, pipelines, power lines, highways and rail built to connect, not divide, built to move resources from the source to the world, built for Canadian prosperity, sovereignty and unity.
Conservatives believe in common-sense solutions. Without a doubt, Canadians deserve better. They deserve strong paycheques, real jobs, energy independence, self-sufficiency, security and national unity. Only Conservatives have fought to achieve Canadians' ambitions and to restore Canada's promise through responsible resource development, every single day, in every single way. Only Conservatives will stand with the workers who power this country, the families who depend on them and the businesses that need them. Conservatives will fight for a real plan that unleashes Canadian potential, restores Canada's promise, strengthens our economy and builds a proud, united, powerful and self-reliant Canada.
[Translation]
[S. O. 57]
[English]
Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's comments. I particularly appreciated the list of suggested improvements. It certainly deserved more than 30 seconds in a 22-hour speech.
The member made the comment that facts do not always fit the narrative and that that was very concerning for her, so I just want to put a few facts on the table that she omitted in her speech.
From 2015 to 2023, global oil and gas production grew 5%. Over the same time, Canadian production grew 29%. That does not really sound like Canada falling behind the world; it sounds like Canada being a leader in the world.
From 2006 to 2015, the time of the last government, not a single pipeline was built. That is another fact that I think needs to be on the record.
Let us not talk about the past, because Bill C-5 is about building the future. It is about building the strongest economy in the G7. Even in a world that uses less oil, demand for Canadian oil will continue to grow, because we and our partners work in an environmentally and socially responsible way. My home province of Alberta understands this. That is why we were the first to introduce an industrial carbon tax in 2008—
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Liberal member for Calgary Confederation. I would like to say it is funny that he started off by taking a jab at me about facts. Just so he knows, my speech was minutes, not hours, but I thank him for that mansplain.
The member is simply wrong. Under the former Conservative government, four pipelines were built, Keystone phase 1, the Alberta clipper, the anchor loop, and the Line 9B reversal, as well as dozens of pipelines within provinces in every part of the country. Almost every single project the Liberals have risked, delayed and let languish was actually proposed near the final years of the former Conservative government, because proponents—
An hon. member: Ha, ha! That's not true.
Shannon Stubbs: Mr. Speaker, what is the member laughing about? That is literally the timeline. He should learn the facts. Proponents at that time had confidence that Canada was a place where they could get projects built. Therefore, I thank the member for his—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague from Lakeland, who has been a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for some time. We are like an old married couple.
She talked about the Liberals' mismanagement of oil and gas projects. It reminded me of the last Parliament, when my Conservative friends used to talk openly about the costly Liberal-NDP coalition and the “Liberal Bloc”.
I wonder if the Conservatives are going to support a time allocation motion, a gag order. If they do, we will end up with a new coalition, a new cross-party alliance. What should we call this coalition?
[English]
Well, Mr. Speaker, I sure do enjoy my time with my colleague on natural resources. Even though we come to almost every single issue from opposite world views, I do appreciate our respectful and collaborative working relationship, including when we can work together to take on the Liberals as effective opposition parties.
Conservatives have always been the party that has advocated for natural resources projects to be fast-tracked for the benefit of all Canadians, and that is the position we continue to hold.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned. The member mentioned something we hear and see often, which is that there is too much discretion left to federal ministers within almost every piece of legislation the government brings forth. Of course, we are dealing with lobbying and insider deals and all this type of thing, and yet, when it comes to these projects, a major projects office will be put in place that aims to coordinate between the different departments required for project reviews.
This, to me, says that at that point, the provinces are out of the picture. Should they be part of this decision-making for clear transparency on what is happening within these supposed projects that are being put forward nationally?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all of her advocacy for energy and resource workers, rural people and those who live in remote and rural areas in Saskatchewan and all across the country. What she has pointed out is exactly the inherent uncertainty in this bill and exactly the questions that Canadians have and the Liberals must answer.
The Liberals said it in the throne speech, and they are setting this up now as if they have got the biggest, brightest idea ever, but it was the former Conservative government in 2007 that established a major projects management office nationally and also a major projects management office specific to the west that brought the provinces, territories and indigenous communities together for energy development for the benefit of all of Canada. Therefore, it is fair that Canadians really are asking whether they can trust the Liberal—
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's respect in appreciating working with our friend from the Bloc Québécois. The Greens love working with the hon. member for Lakeland too. People will be surprised, perhaps, though not the member for Lakeland, to find that I voted against Bill C-69 because I think it is really terrible legislation.
One of the things that I think the member for Lakeland and I both believe, and we may find we agree, is that legislation around environmental review should be based on factual criteria that are established in law, not press releases, and that we should keep political discretion to an absolute minimum.
That said, I am wondering, since the member has read the legislation, Bill C-5, how on earth she can vote for it on this abbreviated bulldozer time frame.
Mr. Speaker, it probably would surprise people that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I have had a good working relationship from time to time, even though we, too, disagree on many different issues or the approach to them, based on our different perspectives and also on the differences between the people we represent. That is the wonderful democracy and diversity of Canada, is it not?
I absolutely, 100% agree with the member on this issue, just as we agreed about Bill C-69. It is specifically why I am saying that the Liberals must amend Bill C-5 to include transparency on the project list and to ensure that all the things they say the bill will do are actually in the law. As the member has pointed out, all that matters is what is actually in the law. Hopefully, we all can work together as opposition parties to get these guys to fix their workaround.
Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting that the member opposite, probably more so than any Conservative member, and maybe she could even be the new leader of the Conservative Party at some point, tries to portray a false impression that in the Harper horror years, the Conservatives were able to develop an inch of pipeline to tidewater. They did not. Not even an inch of pipeline went to tidewater.
When we take a look at Bill C-5 and the April 28 election, it is important for us to realize that a very clear mandate was given to all political entities in this House to build one Canadian economy. Does the member not agree that the essence of—
Mr. Speaker, what I agree with is that we should fast-track natural resources projects and major infrastructure projects and ensure the private sector can get them built in Canada, unlike in the lost antidevelopment Liberal decade.
I must mention to my colleague that I do enjoy our exchanges and his personal encouragement, even though we often argue and heckle each other back and forth and show each other no quarter, as our constituents expect. However, I would point out to him, of course, that the former Conservative government did approve a dedicated export pipeline to Asia in the safest deepwater port with the most direct access.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Shannon Stubbs: If I can, I will just finish, Mr. Speaker.
What happened? Then the court ruled, just as it did on the Liberals' consultation, that indigenous consultation—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the Liberals and the Conservatives, who have so eloquently demonstrated, through Bill C-5, why Quebec needs to become its own country, even though even though we already had plenty of arguments to support that.
We are witnessing another blatant multi-party attempt at nation-building and using crises to further centralize power, which is second nature to Ottawa, as we have always seen throughout the course of history. In the past, it was railways that were used as a sign of national unity, and today it is pipelines.
Do the Conservatives plan to sue the Liberals for plagiarism?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, first, I will finish my answer to the other question.
The dedicated export pipeline to Asia was approved by the previous Conservative government. The court said there were insufficiencies in indigenous consultation, just as it said about the Liberals on TMX, and the then prime minister should have redone the indigenous consultation with the 31 first nations communities that wanted northern gateway and approved it—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.
We are dealing with one of the most significant, if not the most significant, moves toward centralization, encroachment and “franchising” of the provinces and Quebec for the benefit of the Prime Minister's business plan. It all began when Donald Trump was elected. Fear became a reality and a political tool that was used to tell people to be afraid and to rally behind the former head of the Bank of England. It worked, and we have an obligation to listen to popular opinion. We understood that people were afraid of Donald Trump. In Quebec, however, they quickly stopped talking about Mr. Trump. Rightly or wrongly, people started talking about the Conservative leader. This is not a value judgment, but the message we received was that people did not want the Conservatives and were afraid of the Conservative leader, because the party and its leader were associated with ideas similar to Mr. Trump's. Once people realized the Conservative leader was unlikely to win the election, it was a bit late, but many people came back to us. We still have a clear influence in this Parliament today, which will become obvious in the House over time.
To steal votes from the Conservatives, the Liberal leader stole their platform. The Liberals are talking about tax cuts, “drill, baby, drill”, an impossible budget, and a financial framework that makes no sense. Even today, Canadians got $4 billion in handouts without a penny going to Quebeckers. The Liberals have proposed $6 billion or more in tax cuts. Nobody knows anymore how many billions of dollars are involved in the cancelled countertariffs, because the countertariff dance is a bit hard to follow. The government is talking about $9 billion that will go not toward strengthening our military, but toward absorbing the F‑35 cost overruns. All this is on top of the promise to increase spending, lower revenues and rebalance the budget with 2% growth. Many people have tried this before, but none have succeeded. The math simply does not add up.
Regardless, the government is going full speed ahead on projects of pharaonic proportions. A key component is oil and gas, including pipelines. That is not the only component, but it is part of the plan. It is clear that, in the short term, for most, if not all, of the pipelines, the private sector will not act alone. The government will have to pay. The public will have to pay. Apparently, according to the Minister of Industry, the government is disinclined to pay for hydroelectricity. The Liberals will be able to make up their own minds, because they just recruited the Prime Minister's pal, who was in charge of Hydro-Québec. They brought him in, they are going to have a little get-together so he can help them sort out everyone's money issues, and he will be privy to all their secrets. That alone is a question worth asking.
However, it will be years before all those projects generate revenue for the government, and with all the spending I have already mentioned, which will make Justin Trudeau seem like a frugal mom, the deficits will be astronomical. The government is going to act as though climate change does not exist. The people and families of Quebec and Canada are going to pay thousands of dollars a year for repairs and adaptations for damage caused by climate change, which everyone is suddenly pretending no longer exists. They are going to be saddled with projects that will encroach on laws, powers and regulations enacted over the years in relation to the environment, indigenous rights, biodiversity, language and taxation. The government will make that happen by giving a minister who is not very far from the Prime Minister, and who will probably be at the dinner with Mr. Sabia, totally discretionary powers, something countries that are not particularly democratic can only dream of.
However, the government's hasty actions quickly turn into improvisation. Improvising with government affairs is a risky business. It is quite literally reckless, regardless of one's political affiliation.
That is not what Quebeckers voted for. I can already hear someone saying that there are 44 Liberal members from Quebec. It is true that there are 44 Liberal members from Quebec. There are also 11 Conservative members from Quebec, and God only knows who would consider joining the other party. The Liberals did not present a platform; they barely presented a business plan. Quebeckers voted Liberal out of fear, rightly or wrongly, of the Trump-Poilievre duo. Now the Liberals are adopting the Conservatives' ideas in an attempt to align themselves with the Conservatives and carry out the Conservative agenda. No one can convince me that this is what Quebeckers voted for. This is just what Quebeckers voted against.
The Liberals are kicking off their term by imposing time allocation on a Parliament where they were elected by the will of the people to serve as a minority government. I do not think that the government is going to get away with this so easily. I would like to believe that the Conservatives will refuse to sell their souls to the Liberals, because this is not what Quebeckers voted for. They voted for a Parliament that works for them and respects them. The size, breadth, and unprecedented scope of this bill demand comprehensive analysis. This bill needs to be exhaustively studied in committee, not skimmed on the fly one fine, sunny June 12.
If the government had nothing to hide, it would let us send this bill to committee and preferably split it up, in keeping with its true nature. All of us have been elected to work in a transparent manner. We have all been elected to carry out a mandate given to us by the people. The MPs who are not members of the government have been elected to provide careful oversight and, at the very least, to ensure, before they throw their support behind the government, that bills have been carefully scrutinized and found to serve the common good.
Today, nothing could be less certain. I therefore urge everyone to forget about making deals, carry out the responsibility entrusted to them by the citizens of Quebec and Canada and refer this bill to committee for study by members of the House. We are willing to contribute to that study. That is how the House is meant to function.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think that the leader of the Bloc Québécois is misreading the situation. There was an election campaign, and we debated at length. We even wrote on the first page of our platform that we would pass such a bill before Canada Day. That is what we are doing.
Quebec and Quebeckers are facing an economic crisis of unexpected magnitude. The signs are there. The province's credit rating has been downgraded. Aluminum workers are certainly experiencing a crisis. Our supply chains and ports are struggling. Quebeckers have asked us to take action, and that is what we are doing.
Does the leader of the Bloc Québécois not share—
The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.
Mr. Speaker, I share a lot of things, but that is not one of them.
We missed out on a debate. Where was their boss? We usually have our first debate on TVA in front of a large audience. Where was their boss? I could have one tomorrow morning. I am always up for a debate. We could ask Mr. Poilievre, who is not in the House. I have invited him many times.
The Liberals promised to table the bill by July 1, and they have done so. However, did they also promise to blatantly disregard the rules of democracy and try to ram regulations down our throats that they had never mentioned to anyone? There are details of this legislation that suspend fundamental laws preserving indigenous rights, the environment and biodiversity and that suspend the rule of law in Canada at the will of the Prime Minister and his best friend.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the leader of the Bloc Québécois on his election. As I have said many times in interviews and here in the House, I want to congratulate him on his election campaign because he ran a good campaign. That is what I think.
Now, I would like to get him to talk about this bill, which includes something we have supported for years, namely, a single environmental assessment per project. The leader of the Bloc Québécois will recall that 13 months ago, on May 12, 2024, we introduced a bill to that effect. We debated it, we had a vote, and the Bloc Québécois supported the principle of our bill. Rather than having one environmental assessment, followed by another that might contradict the first and require more time, we wanted a single environmental assessment, with the federal and provincial governments working together. That is the principle we had put forward, and the Bloc Québécois supported that principle.
Does the current bill include that same principle?
Mr. Speaker, instead of environmental assessments, the current bill could give the minister the ability to arbitrarily circumvent them in the name of the “one economy” myth. The Liberals are free to hope that Canada is one economy, but they cannot say that it is, because every province is different. I am sure my colleague will agree with me on that.
Every province and region has different economic bases. They export to different markets and have developed different economic tools. That is why we denounce this terrible move toward centralization, especially since it gives a single minister the authority to arbitrarily suspend laws that have been in effect for a long time. Quebec must never give up the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement or dictate the duration of its work.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for his excellent speech. It is always a pleasure to hear him speak.
I would like to hear more of his thoughts on the Liberals' line about how they have 44 Quebec MPs in the House. We know that the Prime Minister cavalierly disregards democracy and the role of parliamentarians. There may be 44 MPs, but there could just as well be 72 or 128 or 343, and they would all be shut down by the gag order. What message does that send?
What message does it send when the government systematically ignores the unanimous voice of 125 Quebec MNAs?
Mr. Speaker, someone suggested earlier that folks are missing Prime Minister Trudeau. I am not so sure, but his government and this one have a few things in common because they are the same. That is why the Prime Minister always talks about the “new government”. At the end of the day, the only new thing about this government is the Prime Minister.
As for those 44 MPs, supposedly Quebec loves them and loves what they do and cannot stop talking about how amazing they are. However, the 125 members of Quebec's National Assembly unanimously said that there is no such thing as one Canadian economy because we have our own institutions, and our institutions are valid.
This is a critical time, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I do not think people realize the extent of it. The public does not understand, and neither do the members of this House.
We have only been sitting in this House for three weeks and the government is already imposing a gag order, even though it is a minority government. The bill under closure has not been debated. There has not been a single hour, a single minute, or even a single second of debate, and they are already imposing a gag order on us.
Normally, when a gag order is imposed, it is because Parliament is deadlocked or because there is a real emergency, a fire is raging and everyone agrees that it should be passed without a hitch. However, that is not the case here. What is worse, they want to impose a gag order on something that will be profoundly transformative. Passing this bill will radically change how the federal government functions and how major projects are approved once presented to us. That, too, is cause for concern.
Even more concerning is that the wording of the motion states, among other things, that parliamentary committees will have only a day and a half to examine the bill, and that witnesses will be heard at a time when it is no longer even possible to propose amendments. That is crazy, but that is what is being presented today and what a majority of members in the House seem prepared accept, on both the Liberal and Conservative sides. I am rather surprised by all of this, because it is a denial of democracy. The government is trying to ram through a bill that was never publicly debated. Almost no member of civil society has had the opportunity to carefully analyze or comment on the bill, including the media and experts in the various fields affected by the bill's provisions. The fact that the government is already imposing a gag order on us is really very serious and problematic. Keep in mind that this is a major bill, not some harmless little piece of legislation.
What is the aim of this two-part bill? We do not have a real problem with part 1, despite the somewhat provocative way in which the Liberals presented it. This part, which deals with the free trade of goods and services and labour mobility, is ultimately not a bad thing, since it involves the federal government withdrawing from certain jurisdictions. The federal government is recognizing provincial jurisdictions and telling us that it will not get in the provinces' way. The government is removing barriers. In fact, it is removing its own barriers. I personally do not want any federally imposed barriers, and I do not think many of my Bloc Québécois colleagues do either, so that is a good thing and we support it.
Part 2 is another story. That part requires a very thorough analysis, and that is why we really want to split this bill. Part 2 of the bill would essentially make it so that certain laws do not apply to major projects that are deemed to be in the national interest. What are those so-called national interest projects, and how will they be chosen? Well, we just do not know. The bill provides some indications, but it does not specify exactly what those projects are, nor does it define the criteria. The criteria in the bill are suggested criteria. They are recommendations. The minister can choose whether to consider them or not. It is up to him. That is absolutely crazy, but that is how it is.
In theory, the criteria are to strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security; provide economic benefits to Canada; have a high likelihood of successful execution; advance the interests of indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. However, these are non-binding objectives. The minister can basically do what he wants in terms of the application of these criteria. The decision is at his discretion. The minister makes a list, and that is that. He decides which projects will be exempt from the law.
How do projects get on that list? It is done by order in council. That means there is no public debate. No one can question whether it is a good or bad project. The minister can wake up one morning and decide that it is a good project. He does not need to ask anyone's permission. Actually, that is not quite true. He has to consult the first nations and the provinces, but all he has to do is consult them and that is it. He does not have to do anything else. He just has to consult them and that is the end of it. What does it mean to consult? It does not mean that everyone agrees. It does not mean that Quebec agrees to be steamrolled. It does not mean that the first nations agree to have projects imposed on them. It just means that someone talked to them about it first. That is all that it means. On the basis of consultation alone, the minister can decide that he has enough information to proceed with an order in council and make the project in question a priority. He can circumvent everything and disregard laws that we thought were unassailable.
What happens when a project is on a list? The project is automatically approved. It had not even been analyzed when the Governor in Council issued an order for the project to be added to the list and approved. It stops there, no public debate, no questions. Before it is even debated and reviewed, before any environmental assessments are done, without any regard for processes, the project is automatically approved. That is real progress.
What legislation would not apply to these major projects? There is a whole list in schedule 2 of the bill. There are 33 statutes, including the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Species at Risk Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, and the Impact Assessment Act. As if that were not enough, there are also regulations that are not automatically applicable to these major projects. We are talking about the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the dominion water power regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the marine mammal regulations, the port authorities operations regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations and the migratory birds regulations, 2022. That is scary enough. We might say that, with a list like that, anything goes.
However, that is not all. Clause 21 of Bill C‑5 states that the Governor in Council may, by order, add any other act or regulation to this schedule, without any public debate, without going through Parliament and without consulting anyone.
What could those acts be? What acts could be affected? It could be the Official Languages Act, and then bilingualism and francophone rights would no longer be respected. The government could add the Canada Labour Code and not comply with it for these major projects. It could no longer comply with the Income Tax Act and people would not have to pay taxes. It could no longer comply with the Criminal Code. That is not written in the bill and it does not say that the government will do that. However, if it chooses to do so, the way this bill is currently written would allow it. That is completely scandalous and unacceptable. I cannot believe that my peers in the Conservative Party of Canada, or anyone else, would support this and say that there is no problem, that they would hand the government a blank cheque and that the government could do whatever it wants for all eternity.
Worse still, it shows that this government is taking cues from the government south of the border. What we were critical of and what everyone wanted to be protected from was a government that acts arbitrarily, imposes its agenda without consulting or listening to anyone, and governs by decree. What we have before us is a government that wants to govern by decree. How are projects chosen? It is by decree. How are the criteria set? They are being set by the minister alone. How can existing laws not apply to major projects? They are excluded by decree. This government wants to govern by decree, and now it wants to impose a gag order. It is unacceptable for a Parliament to pass such legislation. This bill absolutely needs to be thoroughly studied in committee by experts. This bill undermines our democratic institutions and public institutions. Worse still, it would put this government in untenable situations where it could easily be influenced by lobbyists with their own particular agendas. The minister would be very susceptible to this, because there would be no one to block him and no checks and balances.
I could go on at length, but, unfortunately, I am out of time. In conclusion, I would say that shutting down debate on the motion before us is just one reason for that, so I would like to move an amendment that could make it a little better.
The amendment reads as follows. I move:
That the motion be amended:
(a) in paragraph (b)(ii), by replacing the words “at 3:30 p.m.” with the words “at 10 a.m.”;
(b) in subparagraph (b)(ii)(B), by replacing the words “until 5:30 p.m.” with the words “until 11:59 p.m.”;
(c) by adding the following after subparagraph (b)(ii)(C): “(D) the following people be summoned to appear as witnesses for a minimum of one hour each at one of the two committee meetings:
(i) the Prime Minister,
(ii) the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy,
(iii) the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade,
(iv) the Minister of Environment and Climate Change,
(v) the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations;”.
All those people could come explain the bill to the committee. We would also—
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I believe once again that the Bloc Québécois does not fully grasp the current situation.
We are facing an economic crisis, caused in part by our neighbours to the south, and the symptoms are obvious: Quebec's credit rating has been downgraded, and the aluminum sector is anxious.
What has happened in the past when Quebeckers have faced crises? We rolled up our sleeves and did great things, undertook great projects together. If we had listened to the Bloc Québécois at the time, there would be no aluminum industry. There would be no Montreal metro, nor would Expo 67 have come to be. Robert Bourassa would not have been able to carry out his project in James Bay.
There is a similar crisis today. There are similar challenges—
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Would it be possible to grant the government the same amount of time for questions as all the opposition parties get? I get the impression that the government is not following the rules.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois does not like learning lessons from history.
Would the member not agree that, when faced with challenges, Quebeckers are capable of—
Mr. Speaker, what I find sad is that, when faced with these challenges, what Quebeckers and Canadians voted for in the last election was a minority government. When I went door to door, a lot of voters said they hoped that people would co-operate and work together.
However, what we are seeing is a government that is imposing time allocation on a bill that would fundamentally change the way the government operates. Should we accept this without asking any questions and without anyone being able to look at what is in this bill? To me, that is deeply concerning.
Mr. Speaker, by the way, congratulations on your first full day in the Speaker's chair.
I congratulate the member on his very interesting speech. He addressed the issue of first nations. When it comes to energy or natural resource projects, it goes without saying that the first nations must be consulted, of course, but even more so, they should be partners in the projects, partners in the prosperity. That idea has been part of our campaign platform for many years.
What does the member think about including first nations as partners in prosperity through energy and natural resources projects?
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the first nations should be consulted beforehand. I think it is up to them to decide what they do or do not want to get involved with.
Second, there are serious issues with this bill. I find it worrisome to see my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk take all these very important elements so lightly. I hope he will come to his senses before it comes time to vote.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague put it very well: Essentially, the bill requires the entire country to blindly trust a minister who will not be bound in any way by environmental assessments.
I recall the fairly recent Bay du Nord project, which received unfavourable environmental assessments. In the end, even the environment minister at the time, who is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, had to swallow his pride, listen to the industry and grovel before it. Ultimately, this project went ahead, despite the unfavourable assessments.
What does history tell us about how much we can trust this government when it comes to the environment? Does it not show that this bill is, in fact, a danger to the public?
Mr. Speaker, history has shown that, whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in power, they are constantly beholden to oil companies and always work in their interests. It is pretty clear that this bill was most likely drafted in close consultation with oil companies.
The other issue with this bill is that it goes far beyond environmental rules. It encroaches on provincial sovereignty and first nations' rights. It could even suspend all existing laws in Canada that are not constitutional laws. That is what is in this bill.
Significant amendments are absolutely essential. Under the circumstances, it cannot be passed under a gag order.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the fantastic member for Northumberland—Clarke.
Before I talk about the actual merits of Bill C-5, I want to set the stage a little. The so-called one Canadian economy act is being brought in allegedly in response to the threats from the south, from President Trump, but it is disingenuous, at best, to say that that is what this is about. The crisis that is facing Canada is really a result of the last 10 years of a pretty incompetent Liberal government, and I will just talk about a few facts to back that up.
Let us talk about housing. Housing prices have become completely unaffordable. Most young people do not believe that they will ever own a home in their entire lifetime. In Ontario, my home province, we now have one million people regularly using food banks. This is a shocking increase from what it was a mere 10 years ago, when the number of people using a food bank in Ontario was about 350,000. Over the course of a decade of Liberal government management of the economy, the number of Canadians who are using a food bank has more than tripled. It gets worse because, again, 10 years ago, the number of people who were full-time employed and using a food bank was about 8% of those using the food bank. It is now 25%, so that has also tripled.
This is the backdrop of what has been going on in Canada after 10 years of the Liberal government. The Liberals like to say that they are a new government, but in fact they are not. The government is almost entirely composed of the ministers who were responsible for the files that created the challenges that exist today.
Now, the so-called one Canadian economy act talks about labour mobility, which is a critical issue. For a tradesperson in Canada, it is very difficult to go from New Brunswick or Newfoundland over to Alberta, where there may be work, or from Alberta over to New Brunswick or Newfoundland, if they are looking for work. This is because there is no standard set of safety standards across the country. Each province has its own safety standards, whether it is about working in confined spaces or working from heights. People may have certifications in their home province, but those certifications would not be recognized when they move to another province for work. That is a problem, because it could take them three, four or five days to meet these allegedly different standards within their trade, and therefore people would be going three, four or five days without pay. I know. I have travelled across the country. I have met with skilled tradespeople in the unionized sector, and this is a huge problem. It is a big disincentive for people to actually travel across the country to go where the work is.
When the Liberals talk about how we need to remove these interprovincial trade barriers, labour mobility is a huge part, and there is a simple solution. It is one that we actually proposed in the election. We said we would create a blue seal standard for these things across the country, so if people are certified to work from heights in Ontario, if they met that standard, they could go from Ontario to B.C., because they would have met this new standard.
The problem that we have is that the government did not do that in this alleged labour mobility bill. The Liberals are not taking the real step. It is just another example of a lot of talk. It sounds good that they are going to improve labour mobility, but when we actually look at the bill, it would not actually do anything it says. It promises to improve labour mobility by recognizing provincial occupation certificates federally. That would not help the plumber who is trying to go from Ontario to B.C. for work. That actually would not do anything for them. It is the same thing with any other skilled trades. The Liberals had a real opportunity to do something to make the lives of working Canadians better and to make labour mobility easier, but of course they declined to do that, so this is a major miss.
When the Liberals are talking about how we need to get the economy moving, they should have taken real steps to improve labour mobility, especially in the skilled trades. Those of us who spend time meeting with our tradespeople, the people who build and maintain this country, know that there is often a boom-bust cycle to that. The projects may be booming in Ontario when they are not necessarily booming in Manitoba, so the ability to move from one jurisdiction to another in order to be gainfully employed is critical.
This is not a new issue. This has been talked about for almost a decade, but the Liberals have lacked the political will to actually create a standard that would be recognized by all provinces, a new federal standard in the skilled trades for those types of safety things, as I said, like working in confined spaces or working from heights. If the Liberals did that, they would open up labour mobility for our tradespeople at a time when they absolutely need it.
Projects that the Liberals say are going to be spurred along by this piece of legislation have been delayed for a long time; they are not moving forward. Many people in the skilled trades are finding it hard to be employed, but they could be employed if they could move from one province to another. This is an absolute failure by the government, which says it is a new government that will take on new challenges. The Liberals have absolutely walked away from the challenge of labour mobility with this piece of legislation.
While we talk about the challenges with people in skilled trades, I would be remiss, as the shadow minister for labour, if I did not talk about the Liberal plan for modular housing. The Liberals now tout this as the big solution to housing, which, of course, it will not be, but one thing it would do for sure is take away jobs from our skilled tradespeople, especially our unionized tradespeople involved in housing construction: the plumbers, the carpenters, the pipefitters. They are the ones doing all the work to build houses, and now the Liberals want to take that away and have modular houses built in factories where there will be no skilled trades. This is going to have a disastrous effect. We are not going to have Red Seal carpenters working in a factory to build modular homes. The members across are laughing, which displays their ignorance on how the trades work and the general disregard the Liberal government has had for trades, especially for unionized tradespeople.
This brings me to another point, which is that for the first time in Canadian history, there is no minister of labour. This is a pretty shocking discovery. The Liberals are going to say they have a guy; he is the Secretary of State for Labour. However, it is like the person who sits at the kids' table at the wedding. They are kind of there, but they do not really matter that much. They are not at the big person table, which is the cabinet table.
What have unions said when they describe this? Joseph Mancinelli from LiUNA said, “if the Canadian government wants respect from labourers, perhaps let's start with a Minister of Labour”. He went on to call it a “slap in the face”. This is what it has been described as. Even CUPE said that it is “not just disappointing, but frankly insulting.” When we look at the lack of labour mobility in the bill, which is allegedly supposed to help; when we look at the Liberals pushing for modular housing, which will push out the trades; and when we look at the fact that there is no minister of labour, people in the labour movement know exactly where the Liberal government stands. Do not even get me started on taking away the right to strike through section 107 referrals. This is a government that has absolutely no respect for labourers and unions in this country, and the labour unions know it.
Now, let us talk about the one aspect of the bill that I find particularly troubling, which is the ministerial designation. The minister would get to pick the proponents of these projects. How could we ever think this is going to go well from a government that was responsible for the green slush fund and GC Strategies? Now the Liberals would get to pick the people who get these billion-dollar projects.
Imagine the corruption and graft that will go on with a government that has been awash in nothing but corruption and graft for the last 10 years. This will be corruption unlike we have ever seen. The minister is going to say he is going to pick one company to do a project. Can members imagine the corruption that is going to go on? If GC Strategies was able to turn $60,000 into $64 million, what is going to happen with a $1-billion project that a minister gets to pick? The green slush fund was Liberal insiders giving money to other Liberals while the minister stood there and did nothing. Actually, no, that is not true; the minister got promoted. The ministers responsible for GC Strategies got promoted too.
What did the Liberals learn? It is that turning a blind eye to corruption gets rewarded, and now they say this is how they are going to create the one Canadian economy. Yes, it is going to be one Canadian economy for Liberal insiders who get to line each other's pockets with these big fat contracts, just as they did with the green slush fund and just as they did with GC Strategies.
The bill would unleash a tidal wave of corruption and graft that the Liberals will hand out to all of their friends. It is not what Canadians need. It is not what unionized workers need. It is not what tradespeople need. It is another big, fat failure by a corrupt Liberal government, not a new Liberal government but the same old Liberal government that is going to reward its same old buddies with these big fat contracts.
Mr. Speaker, wow, that was a mouthful coming from the member opposite. Talk about misinformation or just completely misguided.
If he wants to talk about housing, let us talk about the six houses that Pierre Poilievre built when he was the minister of housing. We still do not know where they are located. That is not to mention the suggestion that there are no skills involved in developing modular homes.
Let us get to the bill itself. We had a very clear mandate on April the 28 to build one Canadian economy, and it is as straightforward as that. This bill would make a difference. It is part of the discussions that have taken place with all the first ministers in anticipation of our tabling the bill. Will the member get on side with reality and what Canadians told parliamentarians?
Mr. Speaker, I spent a good deal of my speech talking about the opportunity for continued ministerial corruption from a corrupt Liberal government, and the parliamentary secretary's push-back is that Pierre Poilievre built six houses.
That tells us exactly what is going to go on with the corruption, with respect to this particular piece of legislation. His push-back on the skilled trades was that there would not be any skills involved in building a modular house. Of course there would; factory workers have lots of skills. I talked about skilled trades.
Unionized skilled tradespeople will not be building modular houses, which is also why we do not have a minister of labour; we have the kids' table Secretary of State for Labour, which every union in the country has criticized. They know exactly what direction the government is going in. It is going to eliminate unionized skilled trades with this kind of budgeting and with this kind of bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague would like to comment on the truth about the fact that modular homes are being built by folks who are part of the Prime Minister's community. Brookfield, which has moved to the States and has no accountability here anymore, in 2021, actually spent $5 billion on one of the largest modular home construction companies in the world.
Does the member think that might have something to do with this?
Mr. Speaker, the jokes on this write themselves.
We are talking about a bill that gives ministers the ability to pick and choose who gets these billion dollar projects with a government whose record on this is absolutely deplorable, whether it is GC Strategies or the green slush fund. Now the Liberals are pushing modular housing. Of course, Brookfield has a major interest in this.
The Prime Minister has not disclosed his assets that he still has from Brookfield. Let me ask this: Is it shocking that a Prime Minister who probably still owns shares and options, etc., in Brookfield is pushing for modular housing that would improve the profitability of Brookfield? I am not surprised at all, and I do not think Canadians are either.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to share an observation. What is happening in the House right now is fascinating. The Conservatives and the Liberals are making a show of arguing when, actually, the Liberal-Conservative coalition is working together to impose closure on this bill.
The Conservatives are saying that the Liberals stole their plan and that is why they got elected. The Liberals are saying that they were elected to fulfill their current mandate.
The truth is anything but. In my riding, and I think many of my colleagues from Quebec can relate to this, people told me they were going to vote Liberal because they were worried about getting a prime minister who would act like Mr. Trump, in other words, someone who would govern by executive order, with no regard for democracy.
Ultimately, that is what we are seeing now. We have a Prime Minister who wants to act by fiat and could not care less about democracy, since imposing closure at this stage, without a single second of debate, is unacceptable in a democracy.
How will my colleague be able to look at himself in the mirror tonight if he votes in favour of this closure motion?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was not listening to my speech. I was highly critical of this particular piece of legislation because of its effects on unions and skilled trades and the opportunity for government corruption and graft, which there is a well-documented history of.
I am not sure I agree with the member's analysis of the election results, but the voter is always right, and this is where we are. We will continue to attack what I perceive as—
Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to give a speech in the House of Commons, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to spend 30 seconds of my speech thanking my volunteers, my family, and my wonderful community for sending me back here for the third time to represent the great people of Northumberland—Clarke. I thank them all. Their contributions were immeasurable and amazing.
Now I am going to talk about the business of today, which is Bill C-5. Bill C-5 is divided into two different pieces of legislation or parts. The first is the free trade and labour mobility act in Canada; the second is the building Canada act.
The free trade and labour mobility act has also been divided into two. There are two major initiatives within it. Both have to do with federal standards. The first is to say that any product or service that is authorized or licensed by the province would now be recognized by the federal government. In a similar vein, any provincially recognized profession would now be recognized federally.
The second part of the bill is with respect to the building Canada act. The building Canada act has to do with getting projects built that are in the “national interest” of Canada. This legislation is quite ironic because it really says that all those walls, which were put in place over the last decade to stop major projects, would be removed if major projects were in the national interest. Why not just remove those walls to begin with? However, I digress.
Most of my comments will be about the free trade and labour mobility act. The member for Lakeland did a fantastic job. I recommend her short and pithy, but poignant, speech about the building Canada act to anyone who has the opportunity to check it out. She was right on point. However, when it comes to the free trade and Canada act, I think it is important to look at a little bit of context.
Members should remember that not too long ago we had a federal election. Of course, one of the major themes or discussion points in that election was what Canada's response would be to the Trump tariffs, to the pressure coming from perhaps limited access to our greatest trading partner. Both major parties said we should look at trading more within Canada. Numbers such as $200 billion were thrown out there as the amount of additional economic benefits that could come from eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and increasing trade within Canada.
I just want to read a couple of quotes from the Prime Minister on the election trail. On April 5, he said, “Our government has committed to remove all federal restrictions on mobility by Canada Day. Free trade in Canada. Free mobility by Canada Day”. On April 17, the Prime Minister said, “Secondly, to commit the federal government to do its part by Canada Day... So, free trade in Canada by Canada Day”. On April 20, the Prime Minister said, “Our government will do our part for free trade in Canada. We will legislate the removal of all federal restrictions by July 1st. Free trade in Canada by Canada Day”.On April 21, the Prime Minister said, “And we'll work with the provinces to make sure all our health care professionals can work anywhere in Canada, as part of a drive for free trade in Canada by Canada Day.”
It is pretty clear what the Prime Minister committed to. He committed to having no interprovincial trade barriers by July 1, specifically, neither provincial and federal. That is what free trade in Canada by Canada Day means. The reality is that that will not happen even if this legislation gets passed by July 1. The reason is that the scope of this legislation is so very limited. It is limited to products, services and occupations that are federal in nature.
The reality is that most products and services, or at least a large portion of them, are regulated by the provinces. Most occupations are regulated provincially. For example, if a nurse who was accredited in B.C. wants to move to Ontario, they have to be re-accredited in Ontario. This legislation will not affect that. There will be a very limited impact on labour mobility in Canada by July 1, even going forward. With respect to products and services that is also usually the case. The products are regulated at the provincial level. The barriers then stop interprovincial trade from occurring.
I have a spoiler alert to everyone out there: The Liberals have already broken a promise. We will not have free trade in Canada by Canada Day.
There was a much more sensible approach. Instead of misleading Canadians during the election, they could have done what our leader, Pierre Poilievre, did and actually have a plan that would work, that would deliver real financial and economic benefits for Canada.
The first part would be to incentivize provinces. What is happening here is that the government is failing to meet the moment. We had an opportunity. Often, crises come with opportunities. There was a silver lining. It was creating momentum towards free trade. We saw the premiers working on their own accord to tear down barriers, but the federal government could have had a big role.
In accordance with the Conservatives' campaign promise, the government could have provided financial incentive. It could have included in this legislation that if the provinces tear down x barrier, they will get this much more money from the federal government. The best part about this is that these types of benefits actually pay for themselves. As Trevor Tombe and others have written, the financial benefit of actually reducing barriers, and not just making a press conference or a show of it, is hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal government could share some of the benefit from that with the provinces, but it chose not to.
The other part is that the government could have worked with provinces to create that Blue Seal program, allowing nurses, doctors and other health care professionals to work from coast to coast. Instead, the government has sort of gone from elbows up to turn, tuck tail and run. It continues to walk away from anything that is difficult or hard. The government could have used the momentum it had gathered, worked with premiers who are more than willing. I must say, our premiers have done a great job in many respects to tear down these barriers, but federal leadership here would have been invaluable. However, once again, the government, well, it just does not do “hard”.
For example, one thing the government could have done to make major progress was work to eliminate various trucking standards. This may not sound like the fanciest or the most exciting topic in the world, but it is incredibly important, because nearly every product we receive that goes on the shelves goes in a truck at some point.
Right now, we have a myriad of different trucking regulations, from different weights to different safety restrictions. Some estimates put an increase in freight rates at 8%, affecting Canada's GDP by $1.6 billion. If we were able to get a harmonized or mutual recognition system in the trucking industry, that would literally make almost every product in our country cheaper. At a time when we see grocery prices going through the roof, and an affordability crisis, would that not be something great for Canadians to have?
The Prime Minister could have made bold decisions. Instead of these little baby steps along the way, he could have made bold steps, such as repealing Bill C-69, which would have allowed projects to be approved, which would have allowed those national projects that have forever stitched our country together, a country that started with the railroad that built our country. We need those national projects both for our economy and also to bring us together, to unite us. Those projects will continue to be extremely difficult in the absence of a repeal of Bill C-69.
Quite frankly, although the building Canada act may get more projects built, would it not be more sensible to instead tear down the framework of Bill C-69? The last decade has proven the government cannot get major projects in place. Build it down, restart the process, open up with a one-window project, not just for those who are friends of Liberal insiders but for all Canadians, for all proponents who are willing to throw down their hard-earned money in order to build national projects.
Instead of the Prime Minister rising to meet the moment, to eliminate all interprovincial trade barriers, to bring our country together, to make our country greater and more prosperous, the government decided to take the easy way out and make small revisions to interprovincial trade that will not accomplish it. Instead of saving the Canadian economy billions and creating more prosperity from coast to coast, it will merely be another photo op, another wrong step along the way towards interprovincial trade, towards making Canada a truly free trade zone.
Here is to free trade in Canada on the Canada Day when Conservatives have a majority government.
Mr. Speaker, it was absolutely encouraging when we had the Prime Minister gather with all the premiers in Saskatchewan, where they talked about one Canadian economy. Let there be no doubt that this legislation is substantial and does show the national government, under the new administration, a new prime minister, taking a very strong stand that reflects the will of Canadians, who gave us a mandate back on April 28. I believe it is an outstanding performance to this point.
The member makes reference to labour, health care workers, for example. The question I have for the member—
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, someone who is not a member of this chamber was, a moment ago, taking photos on the other side.
I thank the member for the intervention. I was made aware.
We have asked about it to determine who the individual was and whether they were taking photos. Obviously, non-members are not permitted on the floor of the House of Commons, even behind the curtains, and there is no opportunity to take pictures, period, by members or non-members within the chamber. I will say that as a reminder, and we are looking into what has gone on.
I will ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North to quickly finish his question.
Mr. Speaker, I will get right to the question.
I am sure the member understands that, whether it is nurses or doctors, we have to have the provinces on side. They are the ones that have to take down those barriers. It is one of the reasons we have to have the provinces involved.
Would the member not agree that the provinces need to step up to the same degree—
Mr. Speaker, I have, quite frankly, been proud of the way the provinces have moved on this. My problem is that during the campaign, the Prime Minister did not say the Liberals would talk to the provinces and do their best. He said there would be free trade in Canada by Canada Day. He misled Canadians, and that is very troubling. It was a big part of the election campaign and, quite frankly, he misled Canadians. That is just not right.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and got the impression that he has grievances against the government and that he disagrees with its actions.
Did I misunderstand? Is this member preparing to vote in favour of gagging debate on the important bill C-5?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member to hopefully improve this piece of legislation.
The challenge here is that this is a baby step; it is a bread crumb. We really needed a major leap. If done right, it could save hundreds of billions of dollars and make the people of Quebec wealthier, but unfortunately, the government has decided to take baby steps when we needed a giant leap.
Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to expand a bit on the hypocrisy of this programming motion, considering the former minister of internal trade in the Liberal government, who is still in cabinet, just said on February 5 that within 30 days, interprovincial trade barriers would be eliminated.
Mr. Poilievre tabled a blue seal proposal over two years ago, and now we are in a huge rush to put this bill through. The House could have been reconvened in February, and we could have dealt with this months ago.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberals have been in power for the last decade. They did make a half-hearted attempt with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 2017, but they have not been serious. If they had been serious, they would have, in the decade they had to fix this, brought all the premiers around the table and demonstrated the economic importance of tearing down all interprovincial trade barriers and making sure that Canada was strong.
Unfortunately, the Liberals have been focused on legislation like Bill C-69, the gas cap and other legislation that is meant to weaken the Canadian economy and has left us in a difficult situation, having the lowest GDP per capita since the Great Depression.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member bringing up the issue of labour mobility, something I have spoken about with Joe Mancinelli many times. As a professional structural engineer licensed in the province of Ontario, I can say it is a real issue for professionals to have provincial regulatory agencies and to not be able to practise across provinces.
Would the member agree that the federal action on having one Canadian economy would encourage further provincial action?
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the government could have used the power of the bully pulpit and of the Prime Minister to show true leadership by outlining a vision, to both the premiers and all of Canada, of how we get to interprovincial trade.
We knew at the time of the campaign that the Prime Minister misled Canadians when he said there would be free trade in Canada. What he should have done, which is what our leader did, is put out a detailed plan to eliminate those barriers and get Canadians the $200-billion benefit.
Privilege
Testimony by Minister of Energy and Natural Resources in Committee of the Whole
[Privilege]
Mr. Speaker, speaking of misleading, I rise with respect to the notice that I provided to you under Standing Order 48, concerning the statements that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources made in a committee of the whole on Wednesday evening.
In brief, the minister repeatedly denied, when questioned, that politicians would be empowered to pick projects of national interest under the Liberal government's project development legislation that is now before Parliament. However, that is the very essence of what Bill C-5 proposes to empower the government to do. As we know, it is a contempt to mislead the House of Commons or any of its committees deliberately.
I asked the minister, “how do political, hand-picked projects give investors certainty?” The minister replied, “the politicians do not pick the projects.”
I asked again, soon after, for clarity, “the minister said earlier, and kept trying to claim, that he does not approve projects, but his own bill says he does. Is that not true?” The minister answered, “I think what we said is that we do not pick the projects.”
Part 2(c):
requires the minister who is designated under that Act to issue to the proponent of a project, if certain conditions are met, a document that sets out conditions that apply in respect of the project and that is deemed to be the authorizations, required under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations, that are specified in the document.
Further, clause 5(1) of the bill grants the Governor in Council and cabinet the authority to designate projects as being in the national interest, but only on the recommendation of the minister. It states:
If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project is in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend Schedule 1 to add the name of the project and a brief description of it, including the location where it is to be carried out.
The minister also holds the authority to remove projects from schedule 1. That power is set out in the deletion clause:
If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project named in Schedule 1 is no longer in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend that Schedule to delete the name and the description of the project.
These provisions, directly from Bill C-5, make it absolutely clear that the minister and the Governor in Council do pick the projects. That is the fundamental mechanism of the bill.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 82, provides a list of established grounds for contempt, including “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. This point is reiterated at page 112.
The importance of accurate information being provided to Parliament has been underscored in a number of rulings, including that made by one of your predecessors on March 3, 2014, at page 3430 of the Debates:
This incident highlights the primordial importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten.
Speaker Milliken shared a similar view in a ruling on February 1, 2002, on page 8581 of the Debates, when he said, “The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.”
There is a well-established test for determining whether deliberately misleading information has been provided, which, for example, the Speaker explained in his February 15, 2024, ruling, at page 21146 of the Debates: “It must be proven that the statement was misleading; it must be established that, when making a statement, the member knew it to be incorrect; and finally, it must be demonstrated that the member intended to mislead the House.”
Second, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has been held up by the Liberal government ever since the spring's election as the man who is supposed to get major resource projects launched. There can be no way that he is not intimately familiar with the details of Bill C-5, the policy for which it stands and the government's intentions for how to put it into effect.
Third, we must recall the context of the minister's answers. He was intensely questioned on the floor of the House of Commons for four hours, on the Liberals' terrible record over the last 10 years in the resource sector and trying to defend and spin his Prime Minister's signature bill, which had already been attracting a significant degree of scrutiny from all corners.
In any event, intention is not something that, I would respectfully submit, requires ironclad proof like a confession. Indeed, the procedure and House affairs committee, at paragraph 15 of its 50th report, presented in March 2002, acknowledges that intention may well be a matter for committee investigation:
As [then clerk of the House] Mr. Corbett explained to the Committee, it is not uncommon for inaccurate statements to be made in the course of debate or Question Period in the House. The issue is whether the statements were made deliberately, with the intent of misleading the House or its Members. In the case where a Member later admits to having knowingly provided false information – as in the Profumo case – the issue of intent is clear. In the absence of such an admission, however, it rests with the Committee to examine all of the circumstances and determine whether the evidence demonstrates an intention to mislead.
Finally, there is just one further procedural point I should add. Generally speaking, questions of privilege that arise in a committee setting are supposed to come before the House only by way of a report from the committee first, but the nature of committees of the whole, which are single-event bodies, complicates the ability to raise concerns that arise out of their deliberations.
You will recall that in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the House frequently sat in committees of the whole. A similar question of privilege arose, on which Speaker Rota addressed this procedural angle in his July 22, 2020, ruling, at page 2701 of the Debates, “I accept that the particular circumstances of this situation, notably the challenge surrounding the committee of the whole format, do make it appropriate to bring the matter to the Speaker.”
In conclusion, I would submit that the necessary thresholds have been met here, allowing for you to make a prima facie finding. Should you agree, in order to allow for the error to be fully and properly cleared and to ensure appropriate respect for the overarching importance of government accountability to Parliament, to all of us who represent the people, I intend to propose referring the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for further consideration.
Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5
[Government Orders]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Guelph.
It is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-5 to create one Canadian economy. As this is the first time I have had the opportunity to rise in the House to deliver a speech since the election, I do want to express my sincere gratitude to the great people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for putting their trust in me to be their representative. Whether someone voted for me or not, I take it to heart each and every day that I am here to represent them, to be their voice in Ottawa and to ensure that the diverse needs of our region are met and are reflected by our government.
I would not be here without the work of an incredible campaign team led by Morgan, Leo, Norman, Chloe, Lilah, Lea, Natasha, Maira, Kiran, Feiyang and so many more, including hundreds of volunteers from all regions in my riding. I thank them for their long hours, their dedication, their hard work, and their belief in me and the work that we are doing. This victory is as much theirs as it is mine.
I thank my parents and my sister for their support and want to give a special shout-out to my nephews Haiden, Beckham and Sawyer for bringing so much joy to the campaign. More than anything, I want to thank my wonderful partner, Anastasia, for being there with me and for me every step of the way. I know this is a hard job that requires a lot of sacrifice for me to be away from her and from our home, and it is much appreciated.
This year, our country has been faced with an unprecedented challenge in this lifetime with the election of U.S. President Donald Trump and the unjustified and illegal tariffs he has wrought on our country. It has been with a great sense of pride that our country has come together in defiance of this threat. As a country, we realized that we needed to diversify our trade around the world, as well as build up our internal markets by tearing down interprovincial trade barriers.
One of the Liberals' first orders of business since this election was to table the one Canadian economy act. Canada's strength has always come from its people, but too often, our economy has not reflected that same unity. Outdated trade barriers, and fragmented and balkanized regulatory systems have made it harder for Canadians to build, innovate and thrive. We have been working with 13 provincial and territorial economies instead of one Canadian economy, and that has come at cost.
Whether it is a trucker trying to move goods across the provincial border, a nurse seeking work in another jurisdiction, or a business in B.C. trying to sell into the market here in Ontario, the message that we heard has been the same: It should not be this hard to do business in Canada. The two parts of the one Canadian economy act would change that. First, the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act would remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility so that Canadians and businesses could move, work and grow across the country with fewer obstacles.
Right now, Canada is losing billions of dollars a year in productivity and economic output because of fragmented internal markets. A recent estimate from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute pegged the cost of internal trade barriers at up to $200 billion in lost GDP. That is not a rounding error. That is a missed opportunity the size of an entire provincial economy.
Further, studies have shown that removing these trade barriers could lower the prices that people pay for goods by up to 15%. Needless to say, it is imperative and a no-brainer to move ahead with these changes. That is just the macroeconomic picture. On the ground, it is even more frustrating. Small businesses looking to grow and access new markets across provincial lines face hurdles that feel arbitrary. Workers trained to national standards find themselves unable to cross provincial borders without getting recertified. Consumers are facing fewer choices and higher prices.
The core idea of Bill C-5 is this: If a good, service or professional qualification meets the regulatory standards of a province or territory and those standards are comparable to federal ones, then it should be recognized federally for the purposes of internal trade and labour mobility. Canadians increasingly want to buy local, and not just from their province. They want to buy Canadian. By supporting efforts to harmonize standards and expand inter-provincial sales, we are giving consumers more choice and local producers more reach.
Another area where we can expect gains is in the direct-to-consumer alcohol market. This would be a game-changer to ensure that we have the amazing wines and microbrews from B.C. available here in Ontario.
I want to acknowledge the work of our provincial and territorial partners. This is not a federal-only story, even if this legislation is only with respect to federal jurisdiction. From coast to coast to coast, provinces are taking initiative. They are reviewing outdated exceptions, simplifying regulatory frameworks and demonstrating a growing willingness to work together.
Nova Scotia's free trade and mobility within Canada act, Ontario's memoranda of understanding with six other provinces to harmonize standards and reduce red tape, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador signing bilateral agreements to improve co-operation, and B.C.'s economic stabilization act are concrete, collaborative steps that Bill C-5 complements perfectly.
Second, as the Prime Minister mentioned during the campaign, Canada needs to do things that have not been imagined or were not thought possible at a speed we have not seen before. We need to seize the incredible opportunities at our disposal and build nation-building projects, such as interprovincial electrical grid interties, to better trade within Canada, and invest in ports to diversify our trade away from the United States. The proposed mechanism to do that is the building Canada act.
This new act would allow a single minister, after consulting with the provinces and indigenous peoples, to declare projects in the national interest and pre-approve them subject to conditions geared to protecting the environment. The Prime Minister further declared that projects would not be declared in the national interest and imposed upon provinces that are not willing.
Make no mistake. Bill C-5 proposes extraordinary powers that are justified in an extraordinary time. Many would agree we are in that situation today. However, I would like to point out a few aspects of the bill that should be studied at committee if it passes second reading.
First, while it is hard to think it was not that long ago, the first ministers' meeting from just a week and a half ago produced a rigorous list of criteria that would inform whether a project can be declared in the national interest. However, the way the legislation is written would allow for unnamed factors to also drive decision-making. This should be carefully scrutinized at committee.
Second, the legislation would give a minister the ability to exempt any national interest project from an existing law or regulation based on the advice of a minister. If this type of power is to be in the hands of a minister, it is important that there be disclosure and transparency in how that power is going to be used.
Third, the powers this legislation proposes are due to be valid for five full years. We are currently living in a crisis, an extraordinary circumstance brought on by the illegal and unjustified tariffs from President Trump. I absolutely believe that if we talk to steel and aluminum workers or workers in the automotive sector, they will confirm just that. However, this legislation is due to be in effect beyond that, beyond what will be at least one more federal election, and we need to consider how this legislation could be used in bad faith by a future government.
Where there are issues with existing environmental laws causing undue and unacceptable delays in permitting projects in our country, I believe they can be fully reviewed and amended, hopefully obviating the need for these measures in the future. When a small business in Squamish wants to ship products across the country, it should be able to do that without running into arbitrary provincial rules, likewise if a health care worker wants to practise in Sechelt.
I can see my time is running out. I thank all members for their consideration. I look forward to questions.
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the member opposite on the indigenous and northern affairs committee and hope he is returning there so we can complete that work.
In the member opposite's speech, he talked a number of times about interprovincial trade and reducing barriers, and what we have heard pretty much all day and throughout this debate from members opposite is that it just seems new to them, and all of a sudden, they have this great big idea to reduce trade barriers that they have just come up with. Meanwhile, we have been talking about this in the opposition for years. We remember the “free the beer” campaign and many others, where we were talking about reducing and eliminating barriers that hindered interprovincial trade. Also, there are interties. At the natural resources committee, we did a study in 2018 about that.
Why have the Liberals failed to act?
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoyed working with my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes on the indigenous and northern affairs committee.
What I can say is that these are interprovincial trade barriers that have long been a drag on our economy. I think it was in 2017 when the free trade within Canada act was put forward, which dealt with a lot of those ones. Frankly, there are constituencies within each province that have prevented future action on this. Maybe one of the only benefits we can think of from the threat from Donald Trump is that it has led, finally, to provinces starting to reduce their trade barriers, and it is an incredibly important role for the federal government to support that and do everything within our power to reduce them as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when we pass a bill, there is usually a reason. When we pass environmental protection measures, there is usually a reason. It is to protect the environment.
My question for my colleague is this: What part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act section that deals with disposal of pollutants in marine environments is unnecessary? Why do these protections need to be bulldozed to allow major projects to go ahead?
Mr. Speaker, these are not normal times right now. We are in an economic crisis, and we need to do things faster.
I also think the legislation will protect the environment, but we need to put measures in place to make sure of that. I hope that when this bill is referred to committee, these aspects will be studied further.
Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with removing interprovincial barriers and obstacles for businesses and any other entrepreneur or worker.
Does the member believe that removing these barriers is going to benefit his riding, as well as businesses and entrepreneurs in Squamish and across his riding in British Columbia?
Mr. Speaker, yes, these measures will be a tremendous boon to entrepreneurs in my riding. In my speech, I mentioned Backcountry Brewing, a brewery based in Squamish. Its beers are amazing, but they are not sold anywhere in Ontario. I could think of more examples. I know other companies that manufacture highly specialized materials for buildings. They will be able to sell their services and products here.
I hope that this—
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but notice that the Prime Minister has moved the goalposts here. It was to be unequivocal free trade by Canada Day. Now the government is saying, “Well, this is provincial, and that is provincial.” Why has the commitment not been met?
Mr. Speaker, the things that are within the federal jurisdiction are the things that are covered in the act. The federal government cannot force the provincial governments to reduce the internal trade barriers, but it has to act as a facilitator to do everything it can to do that. The first thing that we can do is get rid of those barriers and do what we can to encourage the provinces to do that, and I think we are seeing a lot of progress, from what I mentioned in my speech.
Mr. Speaker, as a new MP in a new government with a new Prime Minister, in a very new Canadian and global context, I am very pleased to share my enthusiasm for the one Canadian economy act, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act. The act aligns with the goals outlined in the throne speech two weeks ago, namely, to affirm our sovereignty, protect our economy and build the strongest economy in the G7, and in so doing, to advance reconciliation and take bold climate action.
The throne speech was the vision, the mandate letter set the priorities, and now, the legislation would start to drill down into the execution. I hate doing the math, but it was 30 years ago that I graduated with a degree in economics, A hot topic at the time was interprovincial trade barriers. Since then, Canadians, under governments of all stripes, have seen little progress in this regard. Provinces were interested in protecting emerging sectors or jobs, or customised standards and practices, or fees and tariffs, for a variety of reasons that probably seemed reasonable at the time. They included different transportation rules, food safety standards, environmental regulations and professional certifications.
Even if not designed to restrict trade, fragmented policies mean it is harder for businesses to operate across provincial lines. Here is an example I heard about a couple of years ago. Court Desautels is the CEO of the Neighbourhood Group of companies. It is a B Corp, a group of restaurants in Guelph focused on spectacular food and also on sustainability. In addition to that, part of Mr. Desautels' commitment is to reconciliation, so he really wanted to ensure that at least 10% of his procurement was with indigenous companies. He found a great indigenous-owned winery in B.C. but could not add it to the wine list in his restaurants. At the time, he could import wine from the U.S. but not from B.C. It just defies all logic.
I have been thinking about that story since I heard it. About 18 months ago, my campaign team asked me what I would like to tackle if I were successful in gaining the trust of voters as Guelph's new MP. I told them I would like to work on reducing interprovincial trade barriers, and they kind of laughed a bit, because apparently I was not the first person in 30 years who had that idea. However, like Charlie Brown running for the football, I thought I would give it a shot.
Now, the imperative is even more critical. With the U.S. wolves at the door, threatening our sovereignty and our economic security, we have what in change management theory is called a “felt need for change”, and a renewed desire to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. We are setting aside provincial and regional interests for national interests to reaffirm our sovereignty; protect our industries, jobs and workers; and build a stronger economy and, I am hoping, a renewal and reaffirmation of the Canadian federation.
I applaud the leadership we are seeing from provinces, like the historic agreement between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, which reached a monumental deal over power from the Churchill Falls hydroelectric plant that could mean $200 billion for each province over the long term. New Brunswick premier Susan Holt is proposing a free trade zone within Atlantic Canada. B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have invited the territories to join their trade pact, the New West Partnership Trade Agreement.
The leadership must come from the federal government, as well as from the provinces. The winds of change are blowing. The political will for eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and building nation-building projects exists; we saw it at the first ministers' conference in Saskatoon just last week, and it is exciting. To reiterate from the Speech from the Throne, “this moment is also an incredible opportunity. An opportunity for renewal. An opportunity to think big and to act bigger.”
As our Prime Minister has said, we used to build things in this country. I think about that when I walk past the historic Rideau Canal here in the nation's capital, because there are actually a number of very interesting parallels. The Rideau Canal was built for military and strategic purposes in the early 19th century, after the War of 1812, to be a secure inland water route for supplies between Montreal and Kingston. Why is that? It is because there was a threat from the Americans.
The canal then facilitated transport and exchange between two provinces. The easier navigation brought settlement and development to the interior of Upper Canada. It facilitated trade and transportation at a time when railways had not yet been built, and it especially became a vital commercial waterway supporting the movement of goods and people.
We have a history of infrastructure projects, and we will again build a stronger, more competitive and more resilient domestic economy from coast to coast to coast.
There is a significant difference in the approach to major projects that is proposed in this bill, of course, and that is how we approach projects and who stands to gain. The following criteria are essential in the designation of major projects. They are to strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security. They are to provide economic or other benefits to Canada. They must have a high likelihood of successful execution. More importantly, they have to advance the interests of indigenous peoples through meaningful partnerships and participation, and they must contribute to clean growth and to Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. We can accomplish many of these goals at the same time. These principles are at the core of this legislation.
Over the past year, I have held round tables with Guelph business leaders, and their message is consistent: streamline regulation and processes. This reflects the findings of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which found that 85% of small business owners said that excessive regulation, including interprovincial trade barriers, hurt their productivity. More than a third of Canadian business owners say that interprovincial trade is more difficult than international trade. In our country, that has to be unacceptable.
The one Canadian economy seeks to address some of these concerns. With respect to the major projects, decision-making will also be simplified. Instead of having multiple ministers rendering regulatory decisions, there will be one designated minister responsible for the decision. However, that does not preclude the required consultation with ministers, provinces and indigenous people to make sure conditions are sufficient. Those conditions will be published; there is transparency. The speed comes from a coordinated approach, rather than a sequential one. This new bill helps provide speed and certainty and is guided by the principles of transparency and efficiency, all important factors to attract investment.
During the election campaign, we promised that we would enhance this aspect of our government. Three weeks later, we are already facilitating processes while ensuring the respect of indigenous rights and initiating bold climate action. We were elected on the promise that we would deliver big projects to benefit Canadians, and that is what we are doing. We are committed to a thriving Canadian economy, including job creation and training more tradespeople, and that is what we are doing.
Eliminating internal trade barriers across the country, whether in federal, provincial or territorial jurisdiction, could grow our economy by as much as $200 billion or boost productivity by 7%. Each year, 530 billion dollars' worth of goods and services are exchanged across provincial and territorial borders. That is nearly 20% of Canada's GDP. In 2024, one-third of Canadian businesses engaged in internal trade. This supports jobs, expands markets for Canadian businesses, increases consumer choice and helps make life more affordable for Canadians across the country. It is the eighty-twenty rule. Canada must play to its strengths, and we are building a strong Canada.
This legislation would ensure Canadian energy security, diversify trade and ensure long-term competitiveness. At a time when the world economy is being redefined and when our historic and most trusted trading partner has engaged in a trade battle with us, this is an opportunity, and now is the moment to lower trade barriers and to engage in nation-building projects. It is time to create one Canadian economy. It is time to seize this moment. It is time to advance reconciliation.
With this legislation, we are improving national supply chains, boosting productivity and creating a more competitive investment environment. That is a better future made real. This is what building one Canadian economy looks like, an economy that promotes reconciliation, supports clean energy and works better for everyone everywhere in this country.
I invite all members of this House, all political parties, to support this legislation. Let us get it done.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that tariffs actually made Bill C-5 as presented to the floor. None of this really matters until we streamline all the legislation, regulations and jurisdictional issues currently in place.
My question is on process. As the government negotiates with the U.S.A. on trade, does the government negotiate provincial resources first, and then consult with provinces, or does the government get provincial consent before negotiating trade based on provincial resources? Which is it?
Mr. Speaker, I think we saw, at the first ministers' conference just last week, the Prime Minister engaging with very enthusiastic premiers, who have presented their ideas for nation-building projects. That is where the conversation begins. How that will now be assessed based on the five criteria remains to be seen, and we are going to see that pan out in the regulation.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Guelph is certainly one of the most renowned locations for agricultural product research.
Does my colleague think that removing interprovincial trade barriers will not only facilitate research, but also encourage commercial applications for research across Canada?
Mr. Speaker, for farmers and farm product processors, removing interprovincial barriers is really essential for marketing new products.
One very simple example comes to mind. A product that is certified organic in Manitoba should be certified organic across Canada without having to go through the process all over again. We are trying to allow marketing and open up new markets to give our producers easier access and to support their prosperity.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's story of the company in her riding, but the great irony of her speech is that this bill would do nothing for that company because she described a provincial barrier, not a federal one.
We have heard a lot about that $200 billion. That is all trade barriers, not just federal ones. Will she give us a real, correct number for what this bill would do?
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are going to be looking to their provinces to continue to lead on eliminating interprovincial trade barriers. Leadership does not just come from this place. We are showing leadership federally in eliminating interprovincial federal trade barriers. We are seeing leadership from the provinces on major unprecedented projects.
Every Canadian should be looking to their provincial leadership and asking it to eliminate those barriers.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and I thank her for her contribution to discussions in the House.
She mentioned the project designation criteria several times. She also talked about leadership. In her opinion, does leadership mean not respecting the laws that were duly passed by the House of Commons? Does it mean not respecting provincial jurisdictions? I could provide more examples. Being in government means showing leadership and being accountable. Does that mean disrespecting jurisdiction and the laws duly passed by the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a crisis the likes of which Canada has rarely seen in the past 50 years.
Leadership means having a clear vision and moving swiftly to implement measures that will protect Canadians.
The bill lays out the role of the minister who is responsible for making decisions and who is also responsible for consulting with provincial counterparts, indigenous communities and other ministers before drawing up a list of criteria. Respect for all existing legislation passed by the House is baked into the bill.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak in this House about one of the first bills of this new government, which is foundational for our vision and ambition, groundbreaking in scope and unifying in its promise. I refer to the one Canadian economy act. Today, I want to share a bold vision with members, a vision for unity, for growth, for a Canada that does not sit on the sidelines or take our destiny for granted.
Today, the world's economies are changing. Global relationships are being tested. Our biggest trading partner, the United States, is taking a new, more unpredictable course. However, the unjustified tariffs issued by the U.S. administration have also presented Canada with an opportunity. History has shown us what these moments of challenge can become when a nation discovers its true strength. It is in times like these that we must stand together as one Canada, work together and move forward.
I will share the two key federal barriers that the one Canadian economy act is proposing to knock down. First, the bill would help remove federal obstacles that hold back the movement of goods and services within our country. It would also allow us to address federal licensing barriers that make it harder for Canadian workers to work wherever opportunity takes them. The free movement of goods, services and labour is essential if we are to meet this moment. Second, the one Canadian economy act offers us a path forward to growth and prosperity, so that projects of national interest, projects that build this nation and benefit Canadians, could move swiftly from the drawing board to the real world, where they would have the power to make a difference in the lives of all Canadians. I will speak to each of these elements further.
I will start by addressing the need to eliminate federal trade barriers, beginning with an example of how current national regulations make it challenging for Canadian business owners to sell a simple item outside of their province or territory. For example, an organic tomato farmer in Ontario can call their tomatoes “organic” and sell them at farmers' markets across Ontario because they were certified under Ontario's system. However, they may want to sell those organic tomatoes in Quebec, a province that has its own organic system.
A responsible grower, even when they have been doing everything right in Ontario, cannot legally call their tomatoes “organic” in Quebec unless they obtain federal certification and go through the extra paperwork and extra expenses. Rather than just putting those tomatoes on a truck and getting them to shelves in Montreal, they face extra steps, because provincial organic certifications are not automatically accepted by the federal government. Our farmers are doing things right; it is the system that puts up barriers where there ought to be bridges. Under this bill, if a good is produced, used or sold under a province's rules, it can move across the country without needing to meet federal standards if it serves the same purpose.
I would like to highlight the work the provinces and territories are already doing to make it easier to sell goods and services to each other, addressing provincial barriers. We need to continue to work together at all levels of government and above partisan politics. The one Canadian economy act builds on that co-operation. It is not about encroaching on responsibilities or regulations of provinces or territories. This is the government's effort to do its part to make trade smoother at the federal level.
This legislation would allow the Government of Canada to lend a hand in taking down roadblocks, because when every order of government works together, there is no limit to what Canada can achieve. Under this bill, if goods are produced, used or distributed according to the rules set out by a province or territory, those goods could be recognized as meeting comparable federal standards on interprovincial trade. We are also proposing to do the same thing with federal trade barriers on selling Canadian services across our provinces and territories. Under this bill, if a service is provided following provincial or territorial rules, that service would be considered in line with the federal rules on interprovincial trade.
The second key element of this bill's barrier-reduction strategy is labour mobility. This is a commitment to ensuring that every Canadian can put their talents to work anywhere in Canada without being weighed down by complicated, costly barriers. This government is working closely with provinces and territories to allow skilled Canadians, including nurses in St. John's, engineers in Edmonton, carpenters in Wellesley and teachers and paramedics from Trois-Rivières to Whitehorse, to move freely, taking their skills, credentials and ambitions with them wherever opportunity calls. The one Canadian economy act is about unlocking the true potential of Canadian workers so that whether a person is a home builder in Kelowna or a health care worker in Cape Breton, this country stands behind them, values their training and welcomes their contribution.
When goods, services and Canadian workers can move freely across our country, so do ideas, skills and opportunities. That is what unity looks like, not just in words but in action. That is what this bill is designed to deliver. When we break down barriers and open new doors, we set the stage for something bigger: for projects of national interest that will move this country forward.
We need to get projects approved faster and change our mindset from whether to build to how to build. That is why we are proposing that Canada adopt a new approach to projects that will advance our national goals, projects that shape the future of our country, build our resilience in an uncertain world and strengthen our autonomy and security. We need to do all of these things in a way that still respects indigenous rights and protects our economy.
The one Canadian economy act is about more than increasing our GDP; it is about investing in people. Let us rise to meet this moment with clarity, with courage and with the conviction that the next chapter of Canada's story will be written by those bold enough to build it.
Before we adjourn, I will wish a happy Father's Day to all fathers. Also, it is Men's Mental Health Awareness Month, so I hope we will all take the time to reach out to loved ones in our lives at this time.
It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer