Bill C-48 (Historical)

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast

This enactment enacts the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which prohibits oil tankers that are carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil as cargo from stopping, or unloading crude oil or persistent oil, at ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska border. The Act prohibits loading if it would result in the oil tanker carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of those oils as cargo.
The Act also prohibits vessels and persons from transporting crude oil or persistent oil between oil tankers and those ports or marine installations for the purpose of aiding the oil tanker to circumvent the prohibitions on oil tankers.
Finally, the Act establishes an administration and enforcement regime that includes requirements to provide information and to follow directions and that provides for penalties of up to a maximum of five million dollars.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this place this morning to speak to the government's long-awaited budget. While the suspense built over the last six months waiting for this day, at the end of it, our biggest fears were realized and the disappointment was palpable. Canadians have been sold a bill of goods packaged up in promises and buzzwords, with the same tax-and-spend policies of the Liberals winning the day and a staggering $78-billion deficit, which, if the budget is passed, will be the largest in our nation's history outside of the COVID pandemic, a deficit larger than what the Prime Minister promised and double what his predecessor left behind.

Before I go any further, I note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière.

This budget is strewn with measures under the same misguided understanding of economics and the notion that we can spend our way out of a deficit. Many Canadians expected better, given the Prime Minister's resume. He promised a generational budget, but the only way this qualifies as such is in the enormous amount of debt that it would leave to future generations. As author and commentator Kim Moody wrote on X, “this is a horrible budget that will cripple our future generations.” Saddling our children and grandchildren with higher and higher debt-servicing costs robs them of opportunity and would hamstring future Canadian governments.

The new Prime Minister is saying and doing the exact same things as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did. As a result, his government will produce the exact same results: low growth, low investment and higher inflation. At their core, the Liberals believe that for Canadians and Canadian companies to build, get things done, create jobs, prosper and pursue their dreams, the government must be in control.

However, what actually happens when a government, especially a Liberal government, gets involved and tries to control things? Investors stop investing. The Prime Minister promised more investment; the budget reveals investment is collapsing. Builders stop building. Companies have fled the country and are building in other parts of the world that directly compete with Canadian producers, for example, in oil and gas. Taxes are imposed, like the industrial carbon tax, which adds to the cost of doing business, making it difficult for Canadian companies to compete and discouraging any business considering moving to Canada. Jobs are lost, followed by higher unemployment, especially among young Canadians.

The impacts can be seen across this country. The farmers who produce food and the manufacturers who build things and create jobs in the riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek are being penalized. The industrial carbon tax, which will continue to increase over the next five years and beyond to 2050, keeps input costs high for our farmers. It drives up the cost of materials like steel and concrete, which are used in the construction of farm shops, manufacturing plants, farm implements and residential homes. It makes our producers and manufacturers less competitive with their international competitors.

By maintaining his industrial carbon tax, the Prime Minister is sending manufacturers in Humboldt, Englefeld and St. Brieux, just to name a few, a message. He is in effect saying to them and to those whose jobs rely on these businesses that he does not really like what they are doing, so he will make it difficult for them to continue doing it.

Similarly, what is the message the industrial carbon tax sends to our resource sectors in Saskatchewan? Rather than creating the right conditions for these sectors to flourish and contribute to our economy, the Liberal government treats them like a bank machine where it can make tax withdrawals over and over again, taking money out of income-generating activities and putting it into a bigger bureaucracy.

Conservatives offered to work with the government to support Canadians and ensure a positive, hopeful and affordable future, one where our economy can respond to international threats from a place of strength, where our farmers can ship their products to new markets and where our manufacturers can compete and sell their goods both south of the border and around the world. Instead, the Liberals have decided to continue with their high deficits despite promising to spend less.

The Prime Minister made a promise to cap spending at $62 billion and broke it. He promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio and instead is raising it along with inflation. In fact, with this budget, the Liberals are spending $90 billion more than was previously committed. That is a $5,400 increase that will come out of the pockets of every Canadian household. That is $5,400 of new spending this year alone for Canadian households.

This budget fails to meet the moment. Fitch Ratings sent out a warning just a day after the budget was released that the constant expansion of fiscal spending by the Liberal government is putting pressure on Canada's credit rating.

To add insult to injury, after tabling the budget and asking Saskatchewanians to make more sacrifices, the finance minister headed off to a lavish “Prudence and Prosecco” party hosted by lobbyists and Liberal insiders. Apparently, it is okay to ask others to sacrifice, just not themselves.

Under their new projected spending, the Liberals are planning to add an extra $321 billion to the national debt over the next five years. That is more than twice the $154 billion the Prime Minister's predecessor, Justin Trudeau, was projecting to add over the same period. The national debt has ballooned to the point where the entire amount the federal government collects from GST will be less than what Canadians are required to spend just to pay the interest on the national debt.

For residents of Saskatchewan, it means the Liberals will spend more money servicing the debt they created than they will send to the provinces in health transfer payments. This is on the heels of taxing schools and hospitals for heating during the winter for years, which was done until it was politically advantageous for them to end the consumer carbon tax.

After shackling our economy with regulations and red tape over the last 10 years, the Liberals' strategy remains the same. They refuse to repeal their anti-resource development legislation, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and plan to continue with their clean fuel standards tax, which will cost Canadians an extra 17¢ per litre on their gas.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau claimed that he was not spending but investing, campaigning on a promise of small deficits, but he immediately broke that promise. The current Prime Minister is maintaining the Liberals' unbroken record of broken promises to Canadians, but he has gone even further by changing the way he will account for his spending. By using an overly expansive definition of capital spending, the Liberals are giving the appearance of a balanced operating budget. If we bring their definition in line with international standards, they will not even deliver on their promise to balance their operational spending. Liberals refuse to get out of the way to let Canadians build, feed and house themselves.

In closing, the people of Saskatchewan and all Canadians deserve a federal government that gets out of the way so they can invest in Canada's economy, build for the future and feed and house themselves. They deserve the opportunity to earn livelihoods, to engineer and create with Canadian steel, to grow Canadian food to feed Canadians and the world, and to buy a home of their choosing. They deserve a government that does not gamble away their future with large inflationary deficits and taxes on their livelihoods. They deserve affordable homes with affordable groceries in an affordable life.

Budget 2025 ignores the challenges people in Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek are facing. It is a budget that delivers for wealthy insiders, bondholders and multinationals. It will drive up inflation, will cost Canadians more in interest on the national debt than we collect in GST or spend on health care transfers, and will saddle our children and our children's children with paying for the Liberals' “buy now and have someone else pay for it later” policies. The bottom line is the Prime Minister has failed to deliver on his promises.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what really caught my attention about this budget and the member's speech is the missed opportunity to repeal bills like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. These bills are barriers to the success of our economy.

What the Liberals like to do, and this is what they always do, is make it so the entire Canadian economy is dependent on a decision that one or two people over there make. There used to be pipeline projects. Over 18 LNG export terminals were inherited by Justin Trudeau in 2015. All of those are gone.

The Liberals put all these barriers in place, and then they spend billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to partner with somebody they might find in the private sector in order to do something. They chased away Kinder Morgan, for example, which was going to build a pipeline for less than $10 billion, and it blossomed to over $30 billion.

Does my colleague agree with me that the government basically just wants to control every single aspect of the Canadian economy? What is that doing to ruin the hope and future—

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, is anyone really better off in Canada than they were before? Will this budget make life any more affordable or safer?

We thought Justin Trudeau was the worst money manager in Canadian history. The current Prime Minister makes him look like Scrooge, because he just delivered the most expensive budget in Canadian history outside of COVID. In fact, he will double Justin Trudeau's deficit, if members can believe that. It is unfathomable that in this budget, the Liberal government just slammed, on top of all the other taxes and expenses, another $5,400 of costs onto Canadian households. It is an empty-promise budget.

Is anyone better off? I am looking at the 2.2 million Canadians waiting in a food bank line every single month, 700,000 of whom are children. I am thinking about the seniors who have to choose between eating and heating, or the single mom who goes to the grocery story and sees that Liberal inflation on food has made everything more expensive. In fact, food inflation is twice the bank's target and is growing 50% faster in cost here than it is in the U.S. That single mom has to choose what she can pick out for her kids this week, whether it is nutritious or not, because more nutritious food is more expensive under the Liberal government. Will she have to sacrifice and go hungry so her kids can be fed?

When we look at this budget, there is absolutely nothing inside it for the everyday Canadian. I remember that when I moved here with my family, people could get by with just one income. In elementary school, I remember getting a paper route to help out at home. We did not come here with much. We lived through very harsh poverty. We used to stand in line for low-income bus passes. However, there was a hope. With hard work, back then people could have an affordable life. They could afford groceries and housing, and most importantly, they could live in safe neighbourhoods.

After 10 years of the government, which doubled housing costs, doubled food inflation, doubled food bank usage and increased crime by 55%, Canada is not Canada anymore. It certainly does not feel like it, because the government has done the most irresponsible thing with the safety of Canadians and their money.

The Prime Minister had the gall to stand up in front of young Canadians and tell them they would have to sacrifice more so he could spend more, and, boy, will he spend a lot of money. In fact, if the deficit is doubled, it can only be paid in a few ways. He will raise taxes again, or it will be paid through the silent tax, inflation, which will make sure that all the things Canadians buy will be more expensive afterward.

How much more do young Canadians have to sacrifice? Let us look at the affordability crisis the government has created.

Young Canadians who do the right thing, work hard, go through school and graduate cannot find a job, cannot move out of their parents' basement and certainly cannot afford anything. They cannot meet the milestones of their life that are so important and that we used to consider the Canadian dream, such as going to school, getting a good job, getting married, buying a home and having kids.

All of that is being sacrificed because the Prime Minister thinks it is more important that his banker buddies get paid more on the interest on the debt that the government has put on top of Canadians. In fact, it is so bad that his banker and bondholder buddies get more money than what goes to the provinces in health care transfers. The money his banker buddies get is more than what Canada collects in GST revenues.

This budget has nothing to help Canadians who are fearing for their life these days. Violent crime is out of control. It is up 55%. Gun crime is up 130%. Extortion, which has really affected the South Asian community, is up 330%. The Liberals could not even say “extortion” in this budget.

Canadians will not feel any safer now. Whether they are sitting at home, sitting in their car or walking their kids to school, every Canadian is saying they are scared. Under the government, which has soft-on-crime policies, criminals have more rights than victims. The budget changes none of that.

The Prime Minister is notorious for breaking every single promise. He said he was the guy to deal with President Trump. In fact, his elbows went missing and Canada's tariffs went up. Every place that he or his Minister of Foreign Affairs goes, tariffs go up and Canada's ranking in the world gets lower. He went to China; the tariffs went up. He said he could deal with Trump; again, the tariffs doubled. If the Prime Minister really had his elbows up, Canada would have a better deal and a better standing in the world, but obviously we do not. He said he would spend less. In fact, he doubled the deficit and put more debt on Canadians' heads.

Every single broken promise is more expensive for Canadians, who are already struggling under the government. Young Canadians have lost the dream of home ownership. Yesterday there was another broken promise, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada proved it. The Liberal government continues to say we have the fastest-growing and strongest economy in the G7. I asked the Governor of the Bank of Canada what he thought about it. He said that, in fact, Canada does not have the fastest-growing economy in the G7; Canada has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7, and our economy is collapsing. That is why we are seeing that Canada also has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7.

Why is that? It is because the Liberal government, with its antidevelopment, anti-energy laws, drove $600 billion of good Canadian investment to the United States. Under the current Prime Minister alone, $60 billion of good Canadian investment in jobs, talent and machinery has gone to the United States. The Liberals do not want anything to be built here. The only thing they are building in this country is more bureaucracy. That is on the taxpayer's head.

The Liberals need to get rid of these anti-energy laws that will not let anything get built. They have these so-called investments, but we are not seeing more investment coming into Canada from the private sector. It does not pay to invest here in Canada under the Liberal government. That is why pipelines are being built outside, and nothing is getting built here. That is why our unemployment rate is going up and youth have no hope that they are going to be able to find a job after they graduate.

What we need to do, and what the Leader of the Conservative Party will do when he becomes Prime Minister, is unleash our economy by getting rid of all the antidevelopment laws in Canada from the Liberal government. We will get rid of the industrial carbon tax, Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the oil and gas cap so that our food prices come down. We will have good Canadian jobs, and Canadians will be able to get good paycheques once again in this country.

We will strengthen the justice system so that Canadians can feel safe again, by reversing the same laws that give repeat violent offenders bail. We will give them jail and not bail so that they stay where they belong, behind bars, and Canadians can feel safe once again.

We will give Canadians affordable housing once again. Let us remember that, under the Conservative government, it was half the cost for housing, and it was a lot cheaper to get food. One paycheque used to do. We will bring back that same Canada, where hard work will give a good paycheque, with low taxes, so Canadians can afford homes and food, and they will have hope. On top of that, Canadians will be able to live in a safe community once again.

With that, I move:

That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “the government's budget statement” and substituting the following:

“since, instead of presenting an affordable budget so Canadians can have an affordable life, it presented a budget that fails to:

a) consider that every dollar the Liberal Government spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians in the form of higher taxes and inflation;

b) bring down the deficit to the level Liberals promised in their last fiscal update, which promised $42 billion last year;

c) scrap hidden taxes on food, including the industrial carbon tax on farmers, the food packaging tax that adds billions in costs, and the fuel standard tax that adds 17 cents per litre to diesel and gasoline for farmers;

d) end the inflation tax by bringing down the cost of government instead of printing money to pay Liberal bills; and

e) include a plan for any oil and gas pipelines that would strengthen our nation's economy and get our resources to market.”

Canadian Energy Sector

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to make Canada an energy superpower and get projects built at lightning speed. Six months later, not a single project permit has been granted. There are no pipelines, no mines, no energy corridors, just broken promise after broken promise.

Now the Prime Minister is pushing forward with an emissions cap that will wipe out $20 billion in GDP, drive investment away from Canada and cost over 40,000 jobs right here at home. These are more broken promises. The Prime Minister seems to think that supporting oil and gas starts and ends with cheering for the Edmonton Oilers. Albertans do not need a Prime Minister to come up with a national wish list. We need him to get out of the way.

A Conservative government would scrap the emissions cap, end Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, and scrap the industrial carbon tax. Instead of broken promises, we would restore the promise of a Canada in which hard work can buy an affordable home in a safe neighbourhood and put food on the table for every Canadian.

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, during question period in the spring, I pointed out that the Liberal government had no plan when it came to the then already-metastasizing youth unemployment crisis. Things have continued to get worse and the government still has no plan.

Youth unemployment, according to the latest StatsCan numbers, has jumped to 14.7%. We are now approaching half a million unemployed young people in the country between the ages of 15 and 24. This means hopes eroding and opportunities lost. Young people who want to work hard, contribute and get ahead are not able to because of the failed policies of the government.

We have called on the government to adopt a plan to reverse its bad policies, a plan to help young people get back to work. We have done more than just suggest that it put forward a plan. We have actually put forward a plan ourselves.

Last week, the Conservative Party released our Conservative youth jobs plan here in Ottawa. That plan was released in a constructive spirit, in the hopes that the Liberals would adopt our youth jobs plan as part of their budget. They have no plan, but we have a plan, and we put it forward in the hopes that the Liberals would adopt it.

Our Conservative youth jobs plan has four elements. We are calling on the government to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are.

When it comes to unleashing the economy, the Liberals need to reverse policies that are blocking economic development. They need to repeal Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48, get rid of the production cap, eliminate the industrial carbon tax to allow our energy sector to move forward. More than that, they need to address the red tape and high taxes that are making it so difficult to start and grow a business.

They need to implement our proposals to stimulate economic activity. We proposed, in the last election, that the government eliminate the capital gains tax for dollars that are immediately reinvested here in Canada.

These measures would unleash our economy and help young people get back to work.

The second part of our plan is to fix immigration. We put forward constructive proposals on immigration, recognizing that under the Liberal government, the system has gotten way out of whack with our labour market needs. We keep hearing experts, during public hearings at the human resources committee study, speak about how Liberal policies on immigration have particularly exacerbated challenges for youth and working-class people by not having effective screening based on skills and by not aligning our immigration system with our labour market. The Liberals need to address these immigration failures. They need to unleash the economy, fix immigration and fix training.

We have proposed significant new investments to support union-based training and support trades programs in high schools. Also, student loan programs should offer relatively more generous support for students pursuing studies in high-demand fields. Right now, loans and grants are offered regardless of the program students are studying in. We are proposing that relatively more generous support be offered to students who are pursuing in-demand fields.

Finally, we need incentives to assist employers that build employee housing so that they build homes where the jobs are. We are proposing a 100% accelerated capital cost writeoff for employers that build employee housing. This plan would help get housing built where jobs are and would make it easier for unemployed young people in regions of high unemployment to move to areas where there are jobs and opportunity and find housing along the way.

This is our plan to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. The Liberals have no plan to address the metastasizing youth unemployment crisis. Conservatives have a plan. Will the Liberals adopt our plan in the budget?

Opposition Motion

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here debating a motion at a point in this nation's history when Liberal delusion is meeting the fiscal reality of Canadians and Canadian businesses.

The delusion is that Canadians have never had it as good as they have it today. The reality is that Canadian families and single moms are worried about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. Canadian businesses are not investing. In fact, we are seeing a lot of investment leaving this country because of doubt and uncertainty and because of the tax regime of this country. Yesterday, I met with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and it is quite concerned about the tax regime in this country.

Delusion is actually meeting reality, and just this week, we learned of what that reality may look like. MNP financial issued a note on a survey it did. The reality of the headline, I think, speaks volumes as to where we are at today as a nation: “Canadians face ‘heat or eat’ decisions as financial strain deepens”. That is the headline this week. MNP financial did a survey of Canadians. Would members like to know what it found? Again, Liberal delusion is meeting the reality of Canadians:

Canadians’ financial vulnerability is worsening, with the MNP Consumer Debt Index sliding two points to 86—its lowest September reading since 2023. Growing numbers report making painful trade-offs: 29% [of Canadians] have reduced utility consumption [which is up five points, year over year] and 24% say they are eating less to save money [which is down four points, year over year]. Nearly half [of Canadians] (48%) are within $200 of insolvency each month [which is up six points, quarter over quarter], and the average cushion after bills has fallen to $744 (from $916). Fewer than half (46%) have six months of emergency savings, leaving many households exposed as winter heating costs approach.

Where are they cutting back? Again, it is Liberal delusion meeting with Canadian reality: “Beyond heat and food, Canadians are changing daily habits to cope. 51% are grocery shopping more strategically (meal plans, bulk buying, coupons, price matching). 45% are avoiding impulse purchases and 41% have stopped dining out or ordering takeout.”

When we listen to the Liberals, and we have heard them today, Canadians do not care about debt-to-GDP ratios, despite the fact that the Liberals are wrong. We have the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. These are all the realities that Canadians are facing right now.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What today's motion says is that enough is enough. What the Liberals are doing is not working. The reality of Canadians is that they are suffering.

Four million Canadians are using food banks. We have seen it increase in Barrie sixfold since 2020. Just a couple weeks ago, I was at the Barrie Food Bank. It is serving 7,600 families a month right now, and 44% of the people it is serving are children and seniors. Those who used to donate to the food banks are now users of food banks in Barrie. This is cascading across the country. Four million people are using food banks every month in this country. It should not be that way.

In the last government, we saw increased debt and deficit, which caused inflationary pressures that have caused many Canadians to feel the price increases at the stores for groceries, and for other items, including heat and hydro. They cannot afford to live anymore, based on the fiscal policies of the last 10 years.

The government has trumpeted the fact that it is a new government since the April election. The reality is that it is the same government since 70% of the people who are in that cabinet today were in cabinet in the Justin Trudeau government, and they are responsible for 80% of the spending occurring in the government today. It is not a new government. It is the same government employing and deploying the same tactics and the same strategy of debt and deficit that is causing so much hardship to Canadians.

After the last election, we have a Prime Minister right now, who is not so much a PM, but more a portfolio manager, who promised the world to Canadians and that he was going to be different. He is anything but, because we are now seeing that the deficit is projected to be $60 billion. I suggest it is going to be a lot more than that. There are a lot of people who are much smarter than me who are suggesting it is going to be a lot more than that. We are also seeing debt increase.

There is a budget coming November 4, which is basically a bait and switch. We know the Liberals are going to try to cover up as much as they can in terms of the actual amount of the debt and deficit through this new budget regime. They are not going to be fooling anybody. All eyes will be on the government to see just how much of a bait and switch this new budgetary regime it is announcing is going to cause.

I say to people all the time that it is naive to think that the Prime Minister left a multi-billion dollar company making multiple millions of dollars for some virtuous reason to make $400,000 as the Prime Minister because he wanted to come back to save the nation. I have said this before in the House, but he came back to keep the kleptocracy alive, to allow those in the inside circle of the Liberal elite party, and all of those who are well-connected insiders and lobbyists, at the trough to maintain access to the Treasury.

Every single problem we have in this country, such as the inflation, the debt, the deficits, the housing crisis, the health care crisis and the immigration crisis, everything, all started before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. Everything did, yet the Liberals continue to use Trump as an excuse.

What we are saying with this motion today is that enough is enough. The Liberals cannot keep doing the things they are doing and expect different results.

Lastly, I want to focus on the issue of resources and building our resources out. Canada has the best innovation, labour and human rights standards in the world. We have the third-largest and fifth-largest reserves in the world. As long as legislation like Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the emissions cap exist, it will continue to limit and impede our ability to create the revenue we need to pay for the debt and deficit the government has not only accumulated over the last 10 years but also continues to accumulate going forward.

We cannot keep attacking our energy sector. We have what the world needs. We have clean Canadian energy that we can feed the world. The problem we have right now, as long as these pieces of legislation exist, and as long as we continue with our emissions cap and an ideological attack on our energy sector, Canada is falling behind to a point where we are not going to supply the world, but we are actually going to enter into a supplementary mode.

We can supply the world with clean Canadian energy, create billions and billions of dollars in revenue and great-paying jobs for our fellow Canadians, including indigenous Canadians, right across the country, yet this ideological attack continues and limits our ability to create these revenues. This will keep happening as long as we keep doing these things. This motion is calling for us to stop doing what we are doing, because it is not working. Canadians are paying the price every single day the government continues on the path it is on.

Opposition Motion—Cost of Deficits

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member has not been listening.

We have been very clear. We can grow the economy by cutting red tape, cutting job-killing regulations that reduce investment, cutting taxes so we are competitive with international competitors, and having a business environment where people will invest and create jobs in this country. We could get rid of Bill C-48, the job-killing, pipeline-killing Bill C-69, and the cap on oil and gas production, which, by the way, produces the most wealth and is the main driver of equalization rates for the member's province.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to remind the member opposite that if the Liberals had not cratered our economy, they would not have to be providing so much in welfare-type services to Canadians.

The reality is that there can be good spending if it is for actual investments that produce productivity, goes toward reducing regulations or perhaps goes toward repealing Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the emissions cap, which would be the greatest thing to unleash prosperity across the country. The government has done nothing but add on red tape, regulations and everything possible to destroy our economy, and the results show massive increases in unemployment, massive increases in youth unemployment and massive increases in debt.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

I am pleased to rise today on our opposition day motion that “the House call on the Liberal government to stop plagiarizing...Trudeau's failed policies and recognize that deficits drive investment and jobs down and the cost of living up.” I will start with a quote from Mr. Milton Friedman, who said, “Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because that’s the true tax…If you’re not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, you’re paying for it indirectly in the form of inflation or in the form of borrowing.”

That is dead-on for what is happening right now, just as it was during the past 10 years with the same Liberal government. It is not a different Liberal government. It is not a new government; it is the same Liberal government, the same tax-and-spend Liberal government. In 2015, the former prime minister was well known for responding to a question about his cabinet make-up, saying it was “because it's 2015”. However, that is what the government seems to be saying right now about its continual spending and out-of-control deficits, that it is because it is 2025.

I say that because it is the same term and the same Liberal government. There is no new plan. It is the same tired cabinet with the same old finance minister, who will not answer what the deficit will be. Although the minister was asked repeatedly at committee what the deficit would be, we did not get a response, which Canadians deserve to hear. Instead, he told Canadians they “should rejoice” at our fiscal situation, yes, rejoice at rising unemployment, rejoice at the highest youth unemployment in decades, rejoice at the doubling of the deficits.

The Minister of Finance is telling Canadians they should be happy with what is going on. They should rejoice at our fiscal situation, rejoice that the interest on the Liberal debt is going to be $82 billion a year by 2030. Put in perspective, that is about $3,000 out of their pockets for every taxpayer right off the bat, just for interest on the Liberal debt. They should rejoice at the fact that the last two years for GDP per capita, per person economic growth in Canada, shrunk by almost 3%.

“Canadians should rejoice” about being poorer, according to the Minister of Finance, and they should rejoice over the fact that the last five years, which coincide with the five years that the current Prime Minister was advising the Liberal government on economic policy, has been the worst five-year per capita GDP growth since the Great Depression. Think about that. It was worse than the five years covering the 2008-09 economic crash. Yes, we should rejoice, the same as the old finance minister who got demoted and is now off being a special envoy somewhere.

We should be happy. We have never had it so good. Every 30-year-old who is living in their mom's basement because they cannot afford to move out should make sure to rejoice and thank the Liberal government, as it says we should do. There are two million Canadians lining up every single month at food banks. One out of every 20 Canadians in the entire country is lining up at a food bank. They should take time, while they are lining, up to rejoice, as the finance minister said.

Mortgage delinquencies have almost tripled in parts of the country in the last two years. As people are packing up their home because they cannot afford it anymore, moving their things into a moving van to maybe move into their parents' basement or out on the street, I hope they will take the time to do as the finance minister suggested and enjoy the good times, rejoice and be thankful for the great economic times the Liberals are delivering.

There are a lot of things I can agree with the government on, and I know I have voted on some items, but there is a lot I disagree with. That is fine; we can disagree. I just want the government to be truthful to Canadians. Government members should not have sat here in the House for years, defending the carbon tax and telling Conservatives that we are climate deniers or that we only want to see the world burn if we want to take our kids on a summer vacation.

They should not not sit here and tell Canadians that their carbon tax is going to prevent forest fires or flooding. They should be honest with Canadians. We saw what the government did for years: It went after everyone who dared go after its dogma of the carbon tax. What happened the second it became unpopular? Liberals patted themselves on the back for cancelling the carbon tax.

A year ago, if someone was against the carbon tax, the old health minister, Mark Holland, would say that Canadians were going to burn the world down if they took their kids on a summer drive. The Liberals now say to thank them for getting rid of the carbon tax. The Liberals are now pretending they are pro-oil, pro-Alberta or pro-energy. They sit here and say that there are no proponents for new pipelines, but at the same time, they refuse to repeal Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. They refuse to repeal Bill C-48, which bans tankers from taking Alberta oil up the B.C. coast but of course still allows U.S. tankers there.

They refuse to repeal the emissions and production cap that the Conference Board of Canada says will cost over 100,000 jobs in Canada. The Liberals should be honest; they should not sit here and say, “We love oil and gas. If only we had a proponent to build a pipeline.”

Liberals are all for oil as long as it stays politely in the ground, it seems. Their position regarding oil and gas is very much like saying that I will push a person down the stairs but also make sure someone pats me on the back for calling 911 to help that person afterward. That is what they seem to be doing with oil and gas: saying that we will be an energy superpower and that we will develop oil and gas but keep Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the production cap, and that it will not be the Liberals' fault that no one steps up from the private sector.

The capital gains tax is another example. I just want the government to be honest. We heard the old finance minister say, basically, that Canadians are going to be living behind gated communities to keep out lower-income people who want to burn down their homes unless we have the capital gains tax. She stated, “[We] could finance [it] by taking on more debt. But that would place an unfair burden on our younger generations”, yet the Liberals are going to add $60 billion of debt this year alone. She then urged Canadians to mark politicians who voted against the capital gains tax increase.

The current finance minister said that the “capital gains tax change [will] help Canadians” and that the Liberals “will fight for Canadians...will fight for the middle class.” He went on to ask whether members could believe that the Conservatives voted against the capital gains tax and tax fairness. The Liberals were going to increase investment in Canada, because their new capital gains tax would ask the wealthiest to pay a bit more to fund investments.

Move ahead a couple of months, and the finance minister, the same one who says we should rejoice at rising unemployment, that auto workers, I guess, should rejoice that we are going to have a permanent export tax on cars, permanent tariffs that are going to cause the industry to collapse, says that by tackling the capital gains tax, we are supporting builders, investment and entrepreneurs.

Is there any reason we doubt the Liberals when they say they are going to build the fastest-growing economy in the G7, while at the same time they bring in massive deficits that are going to drive out private sector investments? Their policies are causing massive, record increases to the use of food banks. Is there any reason no one trusts the Liberals? Everything was all-in on the carbon tax and the capital gains tax. All the borrowing they were going to do was going to drive investment into Canada, yet under the Liberals, half a trillion dollars in net investment has fled the country, with the Prime Minister's promising that another trillion dollars will flee Canada into the U.S. under their watch.

It is clear that we need a change. It is clear that the government has to end its Trudeau-era policies and get real with Canadians. It has to be honest with Canadians, be upfront and change its ways before it is too late.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is $100 billion. No, that is not Dr. Evil's ransom demand from the world. That is today's headline in the National Post. The potential deficit that will be tabled in the budget in November is $100 billion. This is today's front page headline.

It is important to consider how we got here. A $100-billion deficit is staggering. This is almost twice the national transfer to provinces for health care. This is the amount of extra borrowing being piled on. The interest from that will eventually make us unable to spend money on health care, national defence and all the things Canadians rely on from their governments.

How did we get here? The government, in 2015, promised it would run limited deficits for three years. It was the only party in that election promising to do so. Even the NDP back then knew we could not borrow with impunity forever. The Liberal Party was the only party promising a deficit. It said that deficits were okay. This was going to be a short-term deficit. It was going to make historic investments in national infrastructure. It was going to make investments. Its deficits were investments, and that would lead to the budget balancing itself and make people more prosperous.

Here we are, 10 years later. We have an out-of-control structural deficit closing in on $100 billion annually.

When the Liberals were elected, this promise of limited deficits followed by a balanced budget was immediately discarded. It was never, ever acknowledged after that. Bill Morneau was the finance minister. I attended question period after question period. In the finance committee, there were appearances by that minister. He never acknowledged this solemn promise that, clearly, was a point of differentiation between parties.

That was part of what got the government elected in the first place, and it was a lie. What the Liberals had promised during the election was so obviously untrue compared to what they did in office. They were elected. They passed a bunch of anti-business, anti-job and anti-industry bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. These led to immediate capital flight from Canada. Upon the election of the government, $200 billion from the energy industry alone left this country. Half a trillion dollars of investment has left Canada since the government was elected.

We are here today to call on the government to quit plagiarizing the playbook that has brought us to the point we are today. These out-of-control, structural deficits began under the Liberal government. It inherited a balanced budget. This is clear. A balanced budget was tabled in 2015. The fiscal monitors who track spending showed that we were on track to balance it until the new spending of the Liberal government was brought in. It received a balanced budget. It inherited one. It blew it immediately.

The capital flight that resulted from the Liberals' out-of-control spending and anti-industry laws kicked in immediately and began to do what these policies always do everywhere they have been tried from time to time: They led to inflation. We have out-of-control deficits. We have inflation. We have a cost of living crisis now. We have the worst-performing economy in the G7 right now. The Liberals always talk about the G7 and say we are going to be the best in the G7. Well, we are the worst. Our economy is no longer growing per capita. In fact, it has shrunk. It is lower per capita than it was in 2014, the final year of the Harper government. Per capita GDP is lower now than it was in 2014.

Let us think about that. This means Canadians are getting poorer over time. I do not even think a 10-year window covering the Depression would even reveal a period that long and that sustained of declining per capita GDP, or GDP that has shrunk.

We have lower wages, lost jobs and lost investment under the government. We call upon it to reverse course and get serious about the budget.

That brings us to the current Prime Minister. As has been remarked by others, this was the guy who was supposed to know what to do. It had been 10 years of Trudeau, and we were done. We needed to actually have a serious person and have an adult in the room. They switched leaders, and this guy who was supposed to be the adult in the room, who knew finance and had a wonderful resume, came in. He said that this was a serious point of crisis, that we are going to get serious, that we are going to rein in spending and get control of the public finances so that we can grow the economy and deal with the current challenges.

What has happened since then?

He did not do any of that. This is a Prime Minister who promised Canadians that they were going to rein in the general bloat of government that has occurred under the Liberals. The size of the public sector in Canada is the only thing that grew under the government. They added 100,000 federal public servants, yet service gets no better for Canadians. They cannot run anything over there. There are 59,000 employees at the Canada Revenue Agency, and they still cannot answer the phone.

The government was supposed to have someone serious at the helm now, someone who would get control of our finances and bring the budget under control. It has not happened.

Liberals promised, in the election, to rein in and reduce the expenditures on consultants. In the first estimates that they tabled, they have gone from, I believe, $19 billion to $26 billion. I do not have it in front of me. That is what I recall.

They have increased their spending on consultants. They told Canadians that they were going to rein this in, that this was the whole point of the change of leadership, that there was a change of style.

They keep talking about a new government, even though it is the same front bench and there have been the same policies over the last 10 years. It has not happened.

We are getting close to a new budget. I might add that, on top of the $500 billion in capital flight that has occurred under the government before the current Prime Minister arrived, it has accelerated since then. Another $60 billion has left the Canadian economy.

When investment dollars leave the country, that means there is no investment in plant and equipment and technology, which would help drive up productivity so that Canadians can earn more and live better, fuller lives and cope with the increased costs that have crept in under the government.

It is not happening. Wages are not rising. Unemployment is rising, with 900 jobs lost in my city last week in one layoff, announced by Imperial Oil.

These guys have spent the last 10 years chasing investment and jobs out of, especially, the energy sector. We call on them to fulfill the promise that they made in the election and start getting serious, finally, about the budget. We have had a PBO report and a PBO committee appearance, in the last couple of weeks, that are just devastating.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the government's fiscal plan is unsustainable. He called it “stupefying”. He said that it is “unsustainable”.

The Liberals always claim these different measurements, such as declining debt-to-GDP ratio. When the debt-to-GDP ratio started to come up, it was our AAA credit rating. We will see them bait and switch every time on their goalposts.

That credit rating is at risk. They are trying to trick Canadians with a new accounting methodology as their deficits continue to get even worse.

It is time for the House to call upon the Liberal government to stop plagiarizing Justin Trudeau's failed policies and recognize that deficits drive investment and jobs down and the cost of living up.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House this afternoon and join the debate on Bill C-10. I thank the member for Abbotsford—South Langley, who is covering for me at committee at the moment, for assisting me so that I could be here to address the House on this important legislation.

I want to acknowledge that today, October 7, is the sombre anniversary of the worst instance of anti-Semitic violence since the Holocaust. My grandmother was a Holocaust survivor, and I cannot imagine what her response would have been, were she still alive, to the horrific images from that terrorist attack. The violence and the holding of hostages has continued since that day, and I add my voice to the many calling for the release of hostages and for Hamas to lay down its arms. I know that is not the topic of the bill before us, but I did want to mention it given what day it is.

Today, we are debating Bill C-10, a government bill purportedly dealing with issues of justice and reconciliation. The bill would not do that at all, and on that basis, we will be opposing it. I will explain both our opposition to the bill and why I think we should take a different approach.

Bill C-10 would add an additional bureaucratic system around adherence to modern treaties. It proposes to create an additional commissioner of Parliament who would assess and look at the government's response to modern treaties. I suppose the logic of the government here is that the only thing holding the Liberals back from fulfilling their promises is if there was just one more commissioner telling them to do the right thing.

As my colleagues have pointed out, there is always a multiplicity of reports from independent officers or commissioners of Parliament and from civil society highlighting the shortcomings of the government. The government could act on the many recommendations it has received for concretely improving the lives of indigenous peoples, but instead of taking the kind of concrete action that we and many others have proposed, the approach of the government is to say that maybe if we had one more commissioner, it would make all the difference.

I will also comment in response to, I believe, the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, a new member who was making some outrageous claims about the Conservative Party's approach to what happened in residential schools. In fairness, he is a new member, but he could still read the history of what occurred and was said here prior to the time he was elected.

The member maybe does not know, although he could know, that it was Stephen Harper, a previous Conservative prime minister, who apologized officially on behalf of the Government of Canada for what happened in residential schools. It is the Liberal Party that continues to acknowledge, honour and celebrate Liberal prime ministers, in their recent history, who were involved in the opening of residential schools.

Given the efforts of the member to try to make the issue of truth and reconciliation partisan, if he wants to talk about partisan differences when it comes to actions and steps, I am happy to educate him about partisan differences. It was a Conservative government that had the courage, vision and honour to give an apology when previous Liberal governments were unwilling to. We also set up the truth and reconciliation process. Many individuals, of course, were involved, but it was a process that began and took place under a Conservative government.

If the member is unaware of this country's history, I am happy to helpfully add to his knowledge by emphasizing the work that was done by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in that regard. Conservatives believe deeply in the importance of truth and reconciliation, and we are proud to recognize the role Prime Minister Harper played in that. I hope the member will come back during questions and comments to follow up on this point.

To get back to this legislation, this bill proposes to create another bureaucratic position, an officer position, in Parliament that would add to an existing group of oversight bodies that can look at the government's performance on these files. In our judgment, that would add additional bureaucracy when what the government needs to do is take the concrete steps that would improve the lives of indigenous people.

I want to drill into some of the actions that the government could consider that would be more concrete and meaningful. Before speaking in the House, I came from the human resources committee, where we are studying the critical issue of unemployment in this country. Youth unemployment is at 14.5%, and unemployment overall continues to climb. It is now at 7.1%. We are going to see new jobs numbers out this Friday, but we continue to see serious, worsening problems in unemployment, the continuation of a multi-year trend.

We know that unemployment challenges are particularly acute among indigenous Canadians. The Statistics Canada reports on unemployment do not include indigenous people living on reserves, but we know through various metrics that there are persistent challenges with indigenous unemployment in this country.

It is worth noting, as we think about that challenge, that indigenous people are more likely to live in rural and remote areas, proximate to the natural resource sector. While employment in the economy overall is substantially impacted by the kinds of policies that exist in the natural resource sector, employment for indigenous people is disproportionately impacted by policies that relate to natural resource development. This is precisely the testimony we heard this morning at committee: Indigenous people are represented in employment in natural resource development in much higher numbers than they are represented in employment in other sectors.

As Conservatives, we have championed, as part of a larger reconciliation agenda, the importance of economic reconciliation, that is, policies that provide indigenous people with access to employment opportunities. If we want policies that provide access to employment opportunities for indigenous people, they have to include sectors in which indigenous people are more likely to be employed, one of which is, substantially, natural resource development.

Policies from the Liberal government that have blocked at every turn the natural resource sector make it more difficult for indigenous people to find employment. Polices from the Liberal government that block natural resource development disproportionately affect indigenous people seeking employment. That is a reality. Some in the government, for ideological reasons, may say that it is worth it and is a price they are willing to pay, but I think they should acknowledge the disproportionate, negative impact of their anti-energy policies on indigenous people.

What we also heard just a few minutes ago at the human resources committee on the issue of resource development was an acknowledgement from experts that the tone and aesthetic from the Prime Minister's Office may have changed around the discussion of resources, but the substance has not changed. Although we hear words and sounds that are supposed to give the impression of more interest in resource development, the reality is that the policies have not changed. Energy companies looking to create jobs and opportunity here in Canada are asking for the necessary policy and regulatory changes that would unleash economic development and allow for the creation of additional economic opportunities for indigenous people, but the government has not only refused to make those changes but outright opposed them.

One obvious concrete example is the incredible economic opportunities that would be associated with the development of pipeline infrastructure connecting Alberta with export opportunities in northern B.C. We have seen instances of indigenous nations not only supporting but coming forward as proponents of these kinds of projects. They see the opportunities that would emerge from these kinds of developments.

However, the Liberals have persisted in their support for anti-energy Bill C-48, which prohibits exports of energy resources from B.C.'s north coast. Let us acknowledge an obvious reality that some people would like to pretend is not there but clearly is. There are ships off B.C.'s north coast that are carrying energy products; they are just not Canadian ships. There is an abundance of traffic in that region carrying products that could be exported from Canada.

There is no legal way of keeping trade in energy from being in that part of the ocean. It is just a question of whether Canada will benefit economically from the export of our resources, whether we will allow indigenous people who want to be part of those projects to benefit and whether the government will continue to keep its head in the sand and ignore these economic realities. Some of us are hearing from time to time about ostriches. There are certainly people in this House who have their heads in the sand when it comes to these realities of energy development, and they are the ones across the aisle.

The other thing I want to underline when it comes to measures that would improve the quality of life for indigenous peoples is that the government really needs to clean up the mess it has created in the indigenous procurement program. In the last Parliament, we saw the very directly prosecuted issue of the Liberal indigenous procurement scandal.

This is the way the scandal has worked. The government put in place a target for indigenous procurement. It said that it wanted 5% of government procurement to come from indigenous businesses. There are existing organizations supporting and recognizing indigenous businesses, and there are a number of lists and entities outside of government connected with indigenous entities that are working on maintaining lists of indigenous businesses and providing supports to them. The government chose, instead of effectively engaging with external organizations on indigenous business identification, that it would create its own list of indigenous businesses, and it turned out that some businesses listed as indigenous businesses by the Liberal government were not on the indigenous business lists of any external organization.

If the Liberals say that a particular business is an indigenous business and no indigenous entity outside of government says it is an indigenous business, I would suggest there might be some red flags there. Hypothetically, if one of those businesses was owned by a minister of the Crown who was not indigenous, that would also be a red flag.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is basically what the Haida court case of 2004 clearly defines. I will make it clear: It is the community that owns the rights and title; it is not a collective of first nations. It is not even their leadership, unless the community itself decides who the leadership will be.

By the way, the Liberals talk about respecting aboriginal rights and title interests. Why did you approve Bill C-48 when you knew full well that Nisg̱a’a Treaty Nation opposed treaty implementation? You did not say anything about that in your press releases, and you still have not addressed it.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the principles are important, but not to the point of ignoring the Haida court case from 2004 or ignoring treaty first nations. The government is using UNDRIP as a cover to say that Bill C-48 is basically needed. It is not needed, especially when first nations are trying to resolve poverty.

I put this back to the member: How does the government's UNDRIP legislation resolve poverty?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about the creation of a treaty implementation commissioner. Here is some background. I was the chief councillor of the Haisla Nation Council for six years, and prior to that, I was a councillor for eight years. During that eight-year period, I was treaty chairman under the B.C. treaty process; I was negotiating the treaty, so I read all the announcements over the last 20 years, went to all the meetings and read all the reports and the different positions being created to address very simple issues.

For those who do not understand the treaty and how it has evolved, the treaty is basically a formal agreement signed between B.C., Canada and first nations, and has evolved to formalize aboriginal rights and title, and underneath that, case law that established, in the courts of B.C. and Canada, reconciliation. That term is used loosely all over Canada, especially by politicians, for everything under the sun, but when we look at case law, we see that “reconciliation” has a meaning: It is how to marry aboriginal rights and title interests with Crown interests, meaning legislation and regulations.

Under undefined rights and title, which is what we are finding in cases like that of Cowichan, for example, it is complicated, I will admit, but a treaty defines rights and title in a very prescriptive manner, including implementation. There are implementation provisions in modern-day treaties. Why would we create another position, another level of bureaucracy, when implementation is already spelled out in the modern-day treaties?

I have heard the awakening speeches from the Liberal members that talk about social issues tied with economic development issues, which is great. I am glad they have finally woken up to that reality, especially in first nations regions, because we have been talking about that for the better part of 20 years. Before the 2004 court case came along, first nations really did not have a seat at the table. It was the Haida court case of 2004 that defined the role of the Crown in dealing meaningfully with aboriginal rights and title interests, even if it had not been proven. By the way, the Haisla first nation, where I come from, intervened in that court case.

The Haida court case turned things around for my band. We went from being one of the poorest first nations communities in B.C. to being one of the wealthiest and most successful. More importantly, we resolved poverty and unemployment. All those social issues, including the violence of poverty, started to go away. I am incredibly proud of that. In fact I would love to see some type of report done on that. My band is not talking about the social issues that many other first nations are talking about anymore, just because we engaged in the economic fabric of Canada and B.C.

However, it is the politics that have held us back, the legislation created in places like this and in Victoria that many people do not understand and do not follow. I do not blame them, especially today. They are out there trying to make life more affordable and trying to find a job, especially our young people, who are reaching higher levels of unemployment. They have their own issues.

I believe that part of my job is to describe what is happening here in terms of legislation, and to describe how it affects the individual, which is extremely hard. A lot of people think, “Implementation of treaty is such a great thing. They are going to create a commissioner.” Well, a commissioner has no authority. What the commissioner would do is take the decades of complaints from first nations, formulate them into a report and give it to government.

Then, if government repeats its past behaviour, it will ignore the report or come up with some type of word-salad speech, just for the perception that it is actually doing something, when really, first nations leaders are coming to the table in good faith, not only to resolve their issues but also to sign a treaty. They are moving from a place of undefined aboriginal rights and title that requires consultation, and they think they are moving into an arena where they are going to be treated as an equal partner to Canada and B.C.

The Nisga'a Nation, in my region, has had a treaty for over 20 years. Its members were the first to complain of the tanker ban that restricted their economic future. They are a treaty partner of Canada, but Canada did it anyway. To be clear, the Nisga'a were not supporting the transport of oil; they just thought that the treaty outlined specific roles and responsibilities between their treaty nation and the Government of Canada. That is all they wanted. They expected more, because the provisions of the treaty said so.

For treaty bands, unless they are gifted with location as an asset, it is really tough to implement a loan by themselves without an economic base. For some treaty bands that are close to urban centres, an economic base is not that much of a problem, especially if land values are high, such as in Vancouver. However, for remote bands that sign on to a treaty, there are provisions in the treaty where, at some point, they are going to have to get off government funding.

The whole point of signing on to a treaty is to formalize an agreement between Canada and B.C., but also to get away from Indian Act funding. Everybody talks about dependence. Well, for the most part, the Indian Act is irrelevant; nobody is going to enforce those archaic provisions, but the funding agreements still hold first nations dependent on government funding.

Treaty bands get government funding as well, but there are provisions where they have to develop their own source of revenue, which is really hard to do. If we think about a typical band with maybe 800 people on reserve and 800 off reserve, its funding agreement probably amounts to $7 million or $8 million a year; I have been away from council for quite a while, so I am not quite sure, but the provisions of the treaty expect them to replace that funding and be independent of government funding.

There are also extra costs, because Indian Act funding is formulated in such a way that first nations do not really get the entire cost covered by Indian Act funding. If they need $100, the Indian Act will provide $70, and they have to figure out the rest. That goes for water, sewers, administration and health, so first nations are continuously trying to make up the difference.

By the way, under the Indian Act, if a first nation produces a deficit, it will get punished. There will be clawbacks, by a cessation of programs, for example. However, here is the thing: In certain funding agreements under the Indian Act, if a first nation produces a surplus and it is not entirely under the criteria of what government expects, it also gets punished. First nations cannot win under the Indian Act agreement, so it is no wonder they are trying to find a way out, whether that is by leveraging their aboriginal title to be engaged in economy to create their own source of revenue, or by signing a treaty. Either way, first nations leaders are still trying to resolve one central thing: How do they resolve poverty and all the violence that accompanies it?

This is not new. I became treaty chairman in 2003. I used to go to the summit meetings in Vancouver, in Musqueam. They were talking about this back then, not only in terms of implementing a signed treaty but actually in terms of the provisions that we were negotiating at the time. I do not see how a commissioner would change this, when it would be just another office to pass the message on to government that “hey, government, you are not doing your job”, which is what it boils down to.

Liberal members have been getting up and talking about a new era of partnership and building an economy to combat Trump's tariffs. Why, then, have they opposed economic development for the last 10 years? Why did they create Bill C-69? Why did they create Bill C-48? We have already heard energy experts saying that we cannot be an energy superpower without oil and gas, that our dependence as a country on the United States, taking our own gas at a discount, is not only going to limit our ability to diversify our economy but will also limit us in becoming an energy superpower.

First nations are already there; we have been there for the last 20 years. If we look at the Haida court case of 2004, we see there is a specific clause that says there is an economic component of rights and title that must be respected. That is in relation to the land.

First nations get it. They have to make a trade-off, and they have been willing to make that trade-off. They have a specific parcel of land, and in their past practices it might have been subject to ceremonial purpose, food gathering, hunting or fishing. They get it, but they are also looking at the ravages of poverty, especially on reserve, and even, for that matter, off reserve, so first nations have been pushing for economic development in all sectors as much as they could. Who stops them? The Liberal government stops them with its legislation.

I already outlined the Nisga'a Treaty, with the government's partner that has a higher level than just consultation of aboriginal rights and title because it has defined rights and title. The first nation signed a constitutionally protected document with Canada and B.C. that said that the Nisga'a Nation is a partner of Canada and B.C. The leaders did it not just for the glory of signing a treaty; they thought they could build a better future for their people, and they are doing a great job.

At the same time, every modern-day treaty agrees to abide by the laws of B.C. and Canada. This is called the paramountcy of laws. They are agreeing to that, meaning that if someone goes onto treaty territory of a modern-day treaty, they are not going to come into a brand new country with the old set of laws regarding speeding or crimes. They trade their undefined rights and title for that because they want to be a partner.

Most first nations leaders see that the issues we are facing as aboriginals are the same issues all Canadians are facing right now. We are in this together. Like a judge said, let us face it: None of us are going anywhere. First nations want better medical services just like everybody else. They want better highways and better schools. Treaty bands are subject to taxation. They do not want higher taxes, and if they do submit taxes, they want to see those taxes being used responsibly, just like non-aboriginals in Canada do.

Therefore, somehow the new-found idea of partnership with the first nations in economic development for Canada, coming from the Liberals, sounds disingenuous given the past 10 years, but it is more important than ever. It is more important because as we go into a limited economy stifled by legislation and regulations, combined with unmanageable deficits with no plan to pay off the debt, Canada is going down a dangerous road. I can say, as an aboriginal coming off reserve, that I cannot believe there are not more people talking about this.

Other countries have proven what happens when decisions are based entirely on politics. We think the cost of living is bad now, but if we go to a place like Venezuela, which bases its entire system on politics, it is now selling its resources for pennies on the dollar. People there need a wheelbarrow of cash just to buy a loaf of bread.

Governance is serious stuff, and I do get the politics. I understand it, but if we keep making political decisions and not thinking about the present day and future of our country, Canadians will pay for that for decades, for generations.

We are talking about treaty implementation. When I was a treaty negotiator and a chief councillor, it was made clear to me that decisions are to be made based on seven generations in the future. We did not have the luxury of spinning the truth, or at least I did not. Maybe I did have the opportunity, but I did not go down that road.

Yes, a lot of my policy decisions were not liked, but I was doing what I did for a reason. There were issues I wanted to resolve. I also wanted to leave a better place for my descendants. It turns out that LNG Canada was a good decision, even though politicians rejected it. For decades, the B.C. NDP made outrageous claims about why LNG was bad. They were saying that if LNG was approved, Victoria would be under water. The Liberals said that there was no business case for LNG and told that to Germany.

Meanwhile, we were waving from over here, saying, “Hey, wait a minute. We have LNG in Canada, in our territory.” We had Chevron, which was chased out. That was a $30-billion project. It was chased out. There were 18 projects in B.C., and all but three left.

The Liberal government is talking the reverse side of it now, saying that we need an economy, we need LNG and maybe we will become an energy superpower, but it is not going to talk about how it will do that. The government says that it will build oil pipelines but that it is not going to build oil pipelines. All this mixed messaging, wordsmithing and truth spinning is going to hurt Canadians.

This existential crisis that Trump created is not an opportunity for more politicking. It is a time to think about us as a country. Where did we come from? It is a pretty messy picture when one talks about where we came from in terms of aboriginal interests. I acknowledge the past and understand the wrongdoings, but I learned a long time ago that it is better to build a future. It is easy to tear down.

The Liberals have already torn down our economy by saying no to oil tankers on the west coast of B.C., even though there are tankers coming down the west coast of British Columbia on a daily basis from Alaska to Washington state. There is no mention of that. By the way, Washington state will refine some of the oil it gets from Alberta into gas, diesel and jet fuel and sell it back to Canada for incredible profits.

The United States has become an energy superpower for exporting oil and gas for domestic purposes and export. Where do they get a large part of their supply? They get it from Canada, at a discount. Treaty first nations are there; they have been begging for the government to stop ignoring them. All we are saying to the government is to do its job and not create another level of bureaucracy for a message to come from the commissioner to the government to tell it to do its job. First nations want to build Canada, just as everybody else does. Canada should just do its job.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the member talk about economic issues tied in with social issues, because that is what first nations have been talking about for the last 20 years, at least. It is nice to see the Liberals kind of waking up.

We are talking about Canada's economy as well, which the member also mentioned. The Nisga'a have had a treaty with the government for 20 years. They opposed Bill C-48, the tanker ban, but the Liberal government ignored them. Is the ignoring of treaty bands, especially on the west coast of British Columbia, going to continue?