Bill C-5

One Canadian Economy Act

An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act

Part 1 enacts the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act , which establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada. In the case of goods and services, that Act provides that a good or service that meets provincial or territorial requirements is considered to meet comparable federal requirements that pertain to the interprovincial movement of the good or provision of the service. In the case of workers, it provides for the recognition of provincial and territorial authorizations to practise occupations and for the issuance of comparable federal authorizations to holders of such provincial and territorial authorizations. It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Building Canada Act , which, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to add the name of a project and a brief description of it to a schedule to that Act if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the project is in the national interest;
(b) provides that determinations and findings that have to be made and opinions that have to be formed under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations for an authorization to be granted in respect of a project that is named in Schedule 1 to that Act are deemed to have been made or formed, as the case may be, in favour of permitting the project to be carried out in whole or in part;
(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; and
(d) requires that minister, each year, to cause an independent review to be conducted of the status of each national interest project.

Spring Economic Update 2026

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talks about what the NDP did last Parliament. I think we stand in this place, and in our communities, with great pride. With the caucus of 2025, we brought in dental care to nine million Canadians. In the House, the NDP brought pharmacare to over 10 million Canadians and established the first public delivery of diabetes and contraceptive medications. There are people today in this country who are walking into pharmacies and walking out with their diabetes meds, using only their health care card, because of what the NDP did in the House. The NDP also brought an anti-scab law to this place, finally protecting workers who risk violence on the picket line.

I cannot point to a single accomplishment of the Conservatives. With their vaunted official opposition last Parliament, they cannot point to a single thing, not one, that they delivered for Canadians.

What I will say concerning the support of the Liberals is that it was not the NDP that voted for the government's throne speech. That was the Conservatives. It was not the NDP that voted for Bill C-2 and Bill C-5 and helped the government pass major economic programs in the House. It was the Conservatives who voted with the Liberals. There is only one coalition that I see in the House, which is the far-right Conservative Party sitting to my right and the progressive conservative party I see across the aisle.

Canadian Space Launch Act

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, they say that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour.

Let us go through a few examples. We will not talk about the space industry for right now, but let us talk about the oil and gas industry, for example. We passed Bill C-5 this year, which gave the government extraordinary powers to circumvent its own bills that it put in place that stopped oil and gas exploration in this country. That is another example of where projects could not get done. Nothing could happen without the government ministers hand-picking projects.

We are seeing the exact same thing when it comes to this bill. We are seeing that the Liberals do not want to go through a proper process; they want the ministers to have all the power.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, for the most part, we agree on implementing such a system, as we said earlier. However, my concern is that there seems to be a tendency to waive application of the law every time new measures are introduced. It is tiresome.

As we all know, Bill C‑5 became an act that enables the government to designate projects of national interest. It allows the government to override all existing laws. We also know that Bill C‑15 took away citizens' rights with respect to expropriation. The government also got rid of the environmental assessment for the high-speed rail project. Now it is pushing to exempt certain launch-related decisions from Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada review.

I would like my colleague to comment on this. The government seems to view laws as obstacles to progress, but laws are the legislative framework we have established over decades to provide the public with safety and stability.

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the incredible citizens of Calgary Midnapore.

We are here today to debate Motion No. 9, a motion that causes a lot of concern not only for me and for my movement but for many citizens across Canada, citizens who cast their vote believing that it mattered, that their vote would be reflected in the composition of not only the House but also committees.

We find, with Motion No. 9, that this is not the will of the government, even though it was the will of the people, the will of the citizens. These changes would be thrust upon committees without the will of the citizens who voted for representatives to represent them not only in the House but in committees as well. I find this particularly troubling for three reasons. The first is that, in the words of the CBC, there is a complete lack of accountability.

This is a government that needs accountability. The Liberals have failed to deliver for Canadians on a number of fronts, and Canadians continue to feel the pain of their decisions across their lives. We hear, consistently, about the trouble with the cost of living, and with groceries in particular. Every time I go to the grocery store, I am surrounded by citizens who are scared to put items in their grocery basket because they are not certain they can afford them. I think of purchasing a simple item like a basket of berries. We cannot even do this now for less than $10 usually. It is encroaching upon a double-digit dollar number just to purchase a basket of berries. The same goes for meat. There was a time, coming from Alberta, that citizens could enjoy our wonderful beef without concern. Now this is seen as a luxury. It is a result of the government doing a terrible job of managing the cost of living with their policies.

As well, we have seen this reflected recently in fuel prices. Fuel is something we have an abundant amount of here in this great country of Canada. I personally do not accept the idea that there is a global shortage and that Canadians should have to suffer. If the government had been doing its job over the last decade, it would have put in place the infrastructure and the mechanisms so that we would have an endless supply of fuel instead of, now, forcing our citizens to compensate for its lack of oversight over the last decade. That is before we even talk about the carbon tax that the Liberals imposed and the industrial carbon tax that remains.

The result of this, of course, is low productivity. We know that the U.S. has beaten Canada in productivity. It limits wage gains for workers significantly, resulting in high unemployment rates. It is no wonder that Canada lost 100,000 jobs in a single month and that our rate of unemployment continues to hover in the high sixes and low sevens. It is a result of poor policies of a government that requires accountability.

Our productivity gap has become so acute in the last eight years that, according to numbers that have been cited, Canadian business productivity slipped 0.6% from 2017 to 2024, and nearly half of last year's inflow came through mergers and acquisitions of existing Canadian businesses, well above the historical norm of around one-third. That is not new capital creation. It is not adding anything to our economy. It is not adding jobs for our young Canadian citizens.

Today, the announcement of the sovereign capital fund is just ridiculous because there is nothing to go into the fund. Other nations that have created this kind of fund had a surplus. Instead, here, we see a history of deficits.

For every consecutive year, since 2015, there has been a deficit. We see that again this past fiscal year with one of $80 billion. We do not know what to expect tomorrow, but we are concerned and worried. Nearly 80% of Canadians are saying that the cost of living outpaces their income. The government demands accountability. The fact it is creating these committee rules to not allow for this accountability is absolutely by design so it will not be held accountable by the official opposition.

Second, this is a government that talks a good game about team Canada, but it really wants to do things by itself. It really does not want us to have the team Canada approach. Anyone who has any ideas that are not the Liberals' are deemed un-Canadian. It is absolutely insulting to the so many Canadians who have ideas that are different from theirs.

The Liberals said that we were not working with them in their effort to achieve things for Canadians. This is also not true. We passed Bill C-5, which gave them carte blanche to achieve anything they possibly wanted to, yet we are stalled out again with respect to major projects and achieving things for Canadians. They are driving the unity crisis as a result of this type of mentality, which has played out in the creation of these committees.

I received a note this week: “I am so disappointed in our so-called democratic system. What a clown show. There is nothing democratic about floor crossing. When is this nonsense going to end? Who is overseeing this, and when will they fall in their job? Let's just start with the lack of answers during the question and period segments. When a question is asked, it should be obligatory to provide an intelligent reply that actually relates to the question and not merely dodges the question. The Prime Minister should be removed from office for his endless conflicts of interest. I can't wait for October 19th to vote for an independent Alberta.” That is what the government is driving with its authoritarianism, and that includes this committee constitution motion.

I will also point out that the Prime Minister literally won office because he promised Canadians that he would be the individual who could get a deal with the U.S., but to date we have yet to see it. We have only seen his ever-changing position on the trade deal with our neighbours to the south. During the leadership race, he said that dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs by Canada should be given and should be aimed where their impacts in the United States would be felt the hardest. Then, on July 15, 2025, he said that a trade deal with Trump without tariffs is unlikely because there is not a lot of evidence right now that the U.S. is willing to make one. Again, he ran on this and he has not gotten a deal for us.

In October, he said, “We are still negotiating further gains in [our] major sectors”. He also said, “As we speak, our team is negotiating. This is just not words. We will get a deal.” Then, in November, he said, “Who cares?” He said that we would make a deal as it was necessary, saying “It's a detail.... I'll speak to him again when it matters.” I will tell the House that it matters to Canadians. Then, as of this week, he said, “Many of our former strengths, based on our close ties to America, have become [our] weaknesses”, but just three days later he said, “We can come to a mutually successful outcome.”

As I said, the Prime Minister won the election with the promise that he would get a deal for Canadians. The government talks a good game about wanting us to work together, but really he, as described by the CBC, is “authoritarian”. This move to take control of committees points to that.

I will say that the third and final reason is that it is fundamentally undemocratic that committees are constructed in this format. The government got 169 seats in the last election, which is 43.76% of the popular vote, with the CPC getting 144, which is 41.31%. In the words of the CBC, this is overreach. It has an authoritarian streak. Canadians did not ask for this, so it should not be done.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Dufferin—Caledon.

Why do we get involved in politics? Why do those in this chamber put their names forward to stand for an election and all that it entails? The answer, of course, varies and is undoubtedly different for different people. Some run for office to seek change in their local community. Others are motivated by matters of principle or feel compelled to act on behalf of deeply held ideas or beliefs. As we have seen recently, others get into politics for the sole reason of furthering their personal interests, cozying up to power and, maybe worst of all, accumulating power for the sake of power itself, even if it means selling out their constituents and betraying those they were elected to represent.

For the first time in more than 150 years of Canadian history, a Prime Minister has sought the almost unlimited power of a majority government in Canada not through a mandate from voters but through deception and deceit, quietly courting a handful of self-interested, duplicitous MPs through backroom deals and who knows what else, effectively overturning the results of an election and concentrating power that he may covet but has not democratically earned. The result is millions of Canadian voters who are angry and thousands who feel as if their vote was stolen, and I can see why. When someone is elected under a party banner, it is not just a personal victory. It is a commitment to the people who supported them and that platform, those principles and that vision for the country.

In the last election, none of these elected MPs communicated to voters that they would consider crossing the floor just months after the vote. That matters, as does the context within which their decisions were made. It has been less than a year since the last election. The major party leaders are exactly the same. The party platforms are essentially the same. The primary issues facing this country, unfortunately, such as the cost of living, increasing crime, a faltering economy and the ongoing trade dispute with the United States, are also the same now as they were one year ago. If these MPs wanted to represent the Liberal Party of Canada and defend the Liberal platform in this Parliament, they should have made that decision before the last election. Then again if they had, most, and probably all, would have lost their seats. Therein lies the problem.

The Prime Minister is accumulating political power he was specifically and unequivocally denied the last time Canadians went to the polls. We are not just talking, of course, about a handful of individual seats without any broader consequences. We are talking about fundamentally changing the balance of power here in Ottawa, radically remaking the minority government that voters delivered last April, when the Liberal Party and the current Prime Minister were restrained by the need to compromise and consult with opposition parties and were held accountable at committees with production orders, witness testimony and investigative motions. It was a minority government that has now been transformed through backroom deals and floor crossings to a majority that never should have been. It is unethical, it is fundamentally undemocratic, and it has had the effect of essentially disenfranchising thousands of Canadian voters. If a party wants a majority government in this country, it should have to earn it at the ballot box, just like every other government since 1867 in our country.

Here we are. What is done is done, as they say. The next question is, what comes next? It only took a matter of days for the Liberals to tip their hand, moving a motion that we are debating here today to stack committees with not one but two additional Liberal MPs, trampling the oversight powers of Parliament, limiting transparency and laying the groundwork to ram through their agenda. This is from a party that loves to engage in lofty rhetoric about compromise, the defence of institutions and bringing people together. However, at the end of the day, I think what all this exposes is that the only real principle the Liberal Party knows is power, power at all costs, power even as an end onto itself. The Liberals are not about to let something as inconvenient as an election result get in the way.

What will they do with all this newly acquired power and the ability to pass essentially whatever they want? We have seen, over the past 12 months, that what the Liberals say they want during an election and what they actually end up doing can be two very different things. For one, they promised to get Canada's fiscal situation under control and to rein in the excesses of Justin Trudeau, who doubled Canada's debt in just 10 years. Instead, under the Prime Minister, the deficit has actually increased. They also promised to prioritize Canadians' public safety after the increases we saw over the past decade in violent crime of 50%. Instead, the first bill they submitted to the justice committee did not target repeat violent offenders at all but rather the free speech of law-abiding Canadians. As for their signature promise, to negotiate a trade deal with the United States by July 2025, well, it has now been a year since the last election. There is still no deal, and the tariffs remain in place. In fact, the tariffs are higher now than they were back then.

Meanwhile, some other legislation that the Liberals actually campaigned on, such as speeding up the construction of projects deemed in the national interest and introduced as Bill C-5, has been supported by the Conservatives and indeed improved through negotiations and the committee process. It all raises the question: For what purpose do the Liberals seek their near-unlimited power today? For what purpose do they seek to upset a 159-year-old Canadian political convention? Is it that they seek to restrict the opposition from conducting inquiries into their many conflicts of interest? Is it to shield the sunlight of transparency by blocking requests and blocking production orders for government documents and reports? Is it that they tend to introduce radical legislation they did not campaign on and know that none of the opposition parties would be able to support? Maybe it is a combination of all three.

One year ago, I was elected in my riding of North Island—Powell River as the Conservative Party candidate. I ran on a clear platform, a clear set of commitments and a clear vision for this country: to stand up for Canada's resource sector, with forestry, mining, oil and natural gas; to target the real criminals in our country, the repeat violent offenders, not those exercising free speech and not law-abiding firearm owners who have never committed a crime in their life; to stop the reckless spending and endless deficits; to get the cost of living under control; and, finally, to get our men and women in uniform the equipment and support they desperately need and deserve, while always standing up for our country. I intend to honour the promises I made and the guarantees to those who entrusted me with their support and their vote.

Today, with the Liberal motion, this patently naked grasp for political power, there is no denying one very simple fact: My job and the job of my opposition colleagues is certainly about to get a lot more difficult. However, that just means we will have to redouble our efforts and work harder than ever before to hold the government to account, to be the voice of our constituents and to be the voice, as always, of Conservative common sense. We can then ensure that the very real concerns and interests of hard-working, tax-paying and law-abiding Canadians are not ignored and that their priorities, through our efforts and our pressure, become the priorities of the government, however reluctant it is.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Grande Prairie.

I said in my maiden speech, when I got to this august chamber, that this seat does not belong to me. Indeed, it belongs to the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I am a mere custodian of it. I say that to make the point that Parliament itself, this House of Commons, these institutions, are bigger than any of us as individuals. They are bigger than all of us even as a collective. These institutions matter more. This place matters more than the political ambitions, motivations and decisions of the people who get to come here every election.

I have always venerated this institution. Indeed, I have always been fascinated by it. Even going back to when I was a university student involved in politics, I loved partaking in model parliament. I loved taking the opportunity to learn more. Perhaps it is why I have never been reprimanded for not addressing my comments through the chair or not doing some of those other conventions: I have been a student of parliamentary history.

It was an honour the first day I walked into this chamber, and it remains the honour of a lifetime to be here.

It has been saddening in that same vein to see how, for the Liberal government and specifically the Prime Minister, Parliament is a mere annoyance. We have seen the ignorance in this place: the fact that the Prime Minister has a question period attendance rating that is a fraction of that of his predecessors; the fact that he loves “showboating”, to use a word he is fond of, with fake executive orders that have no legal standing in our country; and the fact that he has been doing everything but governing in this place, governing in this chamber.

To govern in this chamber is to be held accountable to Parliament as the collective body representing the will of the Canadian people. Parliament is a body comprising fellow custodians of this chamber, who are sent here with very similar mandates from each of their respective constituencies and constituents. However, we see in the motion before us today that the government does not believe it can win the game, so to speak, so it is changing the rules. It is changing the rules to suit its political ambitions, irrespective of the will of the Canadian people and irrespective of the norms, conventions and traditions of this place.

It should be known to everyone here that Canadians do not, in fact, elect a government; they elect a Parliament. Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary since Canadians elected me, alongside all of my colleagues from all parties. Canadians elected a minority Parliament. The message Canadians sent in doing that was that they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term. I question why they would do that. However, while they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term, Canadians wanted their power to be checked by a strong, robust opposition.

Now, my Conservative colleagues and I have held up our end of the bargain as His Majesty's loyal opposition. We supported and improved legislation such as Bill C-5, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, which is before the justice committee right now. We opposed dangerous bills, such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-9, which the Liberals wanted to wave through without scrutiny and accountability. We worked collaboratively across party lines. We represented the will of Canadians, who elected MPs to champion, for those of us on the Conservative side of the aisle, the values of liberty, personal responsibility and, yes, fiscal discipline.

However, what we have seen over the last year is that when the Liberals do not get their way, they scream obstruction. Opposition is not obstruction. We have seen this in a minority Parliament. I recall when Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had one just a few years ago. A minority Parliament requires the government to find dance partners, so to speak, to find collaboration and earn collaboration from opposition parties. The idea of holding opposition parties hostage to support bad legislation, which is what the Liberal government has tried to do, is not what a minority Parliament is supposed to be.

We have seen under this arrangement, specifically at committees, a situation in which the Bloc has held the balance of power. I have seen votes in which Bloc and Conservative support was enough to pass a motion against the will of the Liberals. I have seen Liberal and Bloc members pass motions against the will of Conservatives. On a rare occasion, I might have even seen Liberals and Conservatives vote together, with the Bloc being the odd party out.

Even when we have lost a vote, frustrating as that may be, I can take comfort in the knowledge that the Liberals were forced to co-operate with someone. They had a check, however modest, on their power. Today, the Liberals would enshrine their desire for a legislative blank cheque, stacking parliamentary committees to reflect their morally illegitimate majority. I say illegitimate majority because it was crafted not by the democratic will of Canadians but by the Prime Minister sending out his cabinet ministers to peel away the unscrupulous and the shameless opposition MPs who hold the will of the Canadian people in as little esteem as the Liberals do.

This morally illegitimate majority is the consequence of that which they now seek to ratify by stacking the deck on committees. Committees are not the property of the government. They are creatures of Parliament. In many ways, they are where the real work happens, where scrutiny can happen, where amendments can happen and where real vigorous debates on the merits or lack thereof of legislation happen.

If the government can manufacture a majority at will, scrutiny is merely choreography. They are seeking to not have a check on their power and to not have scrutiny of their legislation but rather to have a rubber stamp on anything they want to do.

I am reminded of a quote from John Diefenbaker. In April 1957, he was speaking at Massey Hall in Toronto, and he said, “The sovereignty of the people is delegated to Parliament, not to the Executive.”

The Prime Minister could learn a great many things from John Diefenbaker. One of the lessons is that government is about accountability, not control. Another lesson is that parliamentary scrutiny should be welcomed and not scorned. As evidence that these Liberals are uninterested in accountability and collaboration, one need only look at how they rejected our modest amendment to the very motion we are debating today, which would have preserved the status quo on oversight committees such as ethics, government operations and estimates, among others, committees that are not responsible for reviewing legislation but are tasked with being a watchdog on the government.

Why the Liberals do not want to cede control on a committee overseeing ethics, I think, is becoming more apparent by the day. That is precisely what we are looking at here: a government that does not wish to engage in Parliament, a Prime Minister who holds this institution in contempt and a government that does not want to engage in something so seemingly beneath it as seeking and preserving the will of the Canadian people to enact its legislative agenda.

The motion that we have before us today, which I will be opposing, does not strengthen Parliament. It sidelines it. That is something that every member of the House should reject.

I go back to the comment I made earlier about when the Liberals try to invoke obstruction as a narrative. We have given them much of what they asked for when they sought permission to do things that will build the country up. Bill C-5 is a great example of this. They said they wanted monumental, sweeping authority to approve major projects. We said we would love to see major projects. We gave them permission to do this and the framework to do it. No major projects have materialized. Here we are a year later: The Liberal government has promised much and has delivered little.

The one mechanism that could be preserved to ensure that Parliament remains in keeping with what Canadians elected was a committee structure that would force members of Parliament and would force government members to do what the Liberals claim they have wanted this whole time, which is collaboration. No, they are laying their demands bare today with the motion. They do not want collaboration. They do not want co-operation. All they want is capitulation. We say no.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am putting forward is entirely on point with respect to the motion we have before us. The assumption that underlies what the government is doing with this motion is that it was beyond even consideration that there should be seats on the committee for members of the New Democratic Party or the Green Party or any members who happen to sit in this place as independents. There is no rule against it. I think most members of Parliament, if I gave a pop quiz, would be surprised to hear that we are the only Westminster parliamentary democracy that uses this concept of a recognized party at all.

Beyond that, when we look at the results after an election, if we are looking at proportionality, which is at the essence of the government's position in Motion No. 9 because it now has a majority of representation in this place, we want committees to actually reflect the way people voted, with the number of seats at committee reflecting the number of votes obtained in an election, to reflect the democracy of this House into each committee. I think it would have been worthwhile, although I note that it was not considered by the Liberal benches, to consider that proportionality would include the approximately or somewhat under 8% of Canadians who did not vote for any of the recognized parties. That would be some representation on committees, which the Liberals could still have considered when putting forward Motion No. 9, and I think they should have considered it.

As I said, I wrote the Prime Minister about the composition of committees at the very beginning of his mandate to suggest that we want committees to work and that experienced parliamentarians from any party should be considered for full membership because it offends no rule at all, and it reflects more of the principles on which we believe this place to be founded in a Westminster parliamentary democracy.

We are all equal, and each and every one of us has the same rights, the same powers and the same tools to find solutions for Canadians.

When I speak to the motion, it actually is important and directly on point to point out that the recognized party law has been misunderstood for many decades now, and it would be a good time, when we are in this unprecedented transition, to go back to what our House of Commons stands for. That is the reason that it is not an offence under parliamentary rules for someone elected as a Conservative to decide to go sit with the Liberal Party, any more than it was for a Liberal member of Parliament from Paul Martin's immediately deceased cabinet. David Emerson comes to mind. He was elected as a Liberal, and when former prime minister Stephen Harper swore in his new cabinet, there were jaws dropping all over the place as the limos pulled up in front of Rideau Hall and famous Liberal David Emerson got out to be sworn in as a member of Stephen Harper's cabinet.

This is a perpetual problem in Parliament. It is really awkward, because most people have short memories and forget they are living in a glass house. When someone lives in a glass house, it is not a good idea to throw stones. We can say many things about floor crossing, but it is not against our rules, and it is certainly not a surprise, depending on who has just gained the person who crossed the floor. I lost a dear friend. She is still a friend, but I lost a friend when the member for Fredericton, elected as a Green, went and sat with the Liberals. I never said a single mean or nasty thing about her. Her reasons were her own.

Under our system of Westminster parliamentary democracy, we do not put forward candidates to act as cardboard cutouts, as proxy representatives of the leader who cannot be present everywhere, with a recorder button that we can push to hear the voice on some kind of cassette tape. I am using a very old-fashioned reference. I am sure that, with all the social media and AI that we have, we could get a hologram leader of a party to travel around with every candidate and actually seem to be speaking to their constituents. However, the point is that we run as individuals. We are elected in our ridings by our constituents, and the only place we can find a job description for what we are supposed to do as members of Parliament, because there is not a very handy job description, is in our Constitution. All it says is that members of Parliament represent constituencies.

Back to Motion No. 9, what we are doing here is not a big surprise, but I do think there have been cogent arguments made by a number of opposition members as to why this is not a good idea and would create a precedent that the Liberals today may regret having put in place for a future occasion. I found particularly compelling the argument from the member for Saint-Jean.

The member for Saint-Jean contributed additional data to today's debate. She did some research and presented evidence showing that committees do not have a strong track record when it comes to creating barriers.

The member for Saint-Jean pointed out with evidence that in the last number of years, parliamentary committees have not been blocking government legislation. Sometimes it has actually been Liberals in control of Parliament who have filibustered their own legislation. In fact, right before the last election, we had a long period of time when the whole House of Commons was caught up in a Conservative motion on a matter of privilege before committee. All of us who were serving at that time will remember it as sort of a long and painful version of Groundhog Day, where every day we debated the same thing, and every time the Conservatives amended their own motion, they reset the clock and every Conservative member could speak to the same thing again and again. Therefore, the filibustering of one's own motion is not unheard of. Filibustering in committee, even for one's own bill, is not unheard of.

Committees need to function well, and for them to function well, there needs to be a basis of trust and respect in this place. Since I was first elected, I have seen it deteriorate. One thing that deteriorates trust and respect in this place is when members of Parliament are bulldozed by the party with more power. I have experienced, just for the record, more bulldozing since the April 28 general election in this place as a member of Parliament for the Green Party. I feel sort of more physical pain from the bulldozing that took place to get through Bill C-5 very quickly, with full Conservative Party support, no obstruction and no interfering with the Liberal government's agenda. Things were moving with a lot of co-operation, except for those of us who objected, and those of us who are not in recognized parties, as I said, have fewer rights today than I had when I was elected in 2011, because I can no longer stand with four other members of Parliament and insist on a recorded vote, which I was able to do from 2011 until the COVID outbreak.

I know that the debate is going to come to an end very shortly. I do not want to use my full time allotted, because I think my points have been made pretty clearly at this point. I would ask, and I hope, that when we look at this again, PROC will be engaged to study committee membership. I hope we will actually have a proper study and discussion of why we have misinterpreted the recognized party rules to such an extent that there are two tiers. It does get very Orwellian. All MPs are equal, but some are more equal than others.

With that, I urge this place to defeat the motion before us and attempt, if we possibly can, not to build this place on “might makes right” or “numbers rule all”, but get to a place where we have real conversations and real study and respect democracy and the people who sent us here.

Consideration of Government Business No.9

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned. The NDP has a strict rule. We actually tried to pass a bill to not allow floor crossings but to leave that up to the electorate. The current Liberal government has passed several bills that are in violation of our Constitution and charter rights: Bill C-9, Bill C-5 and Bill C-12. Now, we are going to have a situation where the majority Liberals pass bills that are completely unconstitutional. I am wondering how the hon. member feels about that.

National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle indicated where we stand on Bill C-266, an act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility. This bill is presented as a practical measure aimed at facilitating the mobility of skilled workers. Who could possibly oppose credential recognition? Who could oppose streamlining administrative procedures? Who could oppose faster access to the labour market?

Behind these good intentions lies a well-known strategy. Ottawa is using a real problem to grant itself new powers in an area that falls under Quebec jurisdiction. Skills training, trade certification, workforce planning and labour market organization are all Quebec's responsibility. Quebec already has its own institutions, mechanisms, partners and economic priorities. The Bloc Québécois has been clear: This bill is an attempt at centralization disguised as a technical solution.

When it comes to employment and labour, Quebec did not wait for Ottawa to take action. Quebec already has a comprehensive system and it already manages its labour policies with the Commission de la construction du Québec, the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, Services Québec, vocational training centres, the CEGEPs that offer technical programs and employer and labour organizations. We already have a lot of labour policies.

It is important to take a moment here to review the history. In 1997, Ottawa recognized Quebec's responsibility for active employment measures through the Canada–Québec Labour Market Development Agreement in Principle. Since then, Quebec has been designing, administering and adapting its own training and job entry programs. Ottawa has already acknowledged that Quebec is in a better position to manage its workforce, so why are we taking this step backwards?

What is more, what we can say is that the amounts that have already been transferred prove that the Quebec model exists. I will share a few numbers. In 2019, Ottawa announced nearly $5.4 billion in funding for Quebec until 2022‑23 through workforce and labour market agreements. That represents roughly 240,000 more Quebeckers who can benefit from employment and training measures. Ottawa already recognizes that Quebec is better at administering these programs, that needs differ from province to province and that Quebec has its own model. This raises the following question: If Quebec is already managing the billions of dollars invested in training, why would Ottawa now want to control the rules?

We can see that there is a real risk of downgrading standards. The problem with the national framework is that the bill provides for a national list of trades, a comparison of provincial standards and equivalencies, harmonization and regulatory streamlining. That means that Ottawa is establishing itself as a national benchmark. When we see all that, it is clear that it is a danger for Quebec. Such a situation could undermine Quebec's safety standards, its training requirements, its apprenticeship mechanisms, its ability to protect French in the workplace and its unique characteristics in the construction industry.

I come from a family of masons and carpenters. I often have conversations on Sunday evenings with my brothers, brothers-in-law and other family members. They regularly talk to me about reskilling, training and the very strict rules governing their trades, especially in the construction industry. I can confirm that Quebec is truly at the forefront. There is a risk in allowing Ottawa to take a more centralized approach to managing this.

I would like to share a statistic that might be useful at this stage. The construction sector in Quebec employs more than 300,000 workers. We are talking about a critical sector here, not some administrative detail. Quebec has unique characteristics that are non-negotiable. These include the use of French on construction sites, the province's specific construction regulations, Quebec's distinct regional realities, the province's unique industrial needs, and the culture of labour-management co-operation, which must also be taken into account. We need to recognize that labour market needs in Sept-Îles, Rouyn-Noranda, Drummondville or Montreal are not the same as those in Calgary or Halifax. The Canadian labour market is far from uniform. Trying to standardize it is a mistake. We certainly agree on mobility in some form, but the main problem is interference.

The Bloc Québécois has a fairly balanced position. We generally support voluntary mutual recognition, the free movement of workers, intergovernmental agreements, the reduction of red tape, and more pragmatic solutions. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois opposes any frameworks imposed by Ottawa, centralization, Canada-wide standards that bypass Quebec, and the gradual erosion of jurisdictions.

Lastly, we do want to talk about the labour shortage, but the problem is a lack of workers, not a lack of structures. The real solution we want is to promote skilled trades to young people. We also want to speed up the recognition of prior learning. We want to invest in skills training. We need to support reskilling, help SMEs train the next generation of employees and allow Quebec to recruit workers based on its needs. All of this is crucial because Canada has had over 700,000 job vacancies on several occasions recently, according to Statistics Canada. A shortage of welders is not going to be solved with a federal committee. That is not how it works.

What we are seeing once again is that anytime there is a crisis, the federal government sees it as an opportunity to introduce bills that interfere in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. I get the impression that, with the situation with our American neighbours, the federal government is definitely trying to find “Ottawa knows best” solutions. However, that is not how things work.

The Bloc Québécois criticized Bill C-5 and its many encroachments thanks to its Canadian projects led by Ottawa. However, Bill C-266 follows exactly the same path that we criticized. These attempts at interference have been happening repeatedly since the current Liberal government and Prime Minister were elected. It has not even been a year, but the number of attempts at bills that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction is extremely worrying. Little by little, they are trying to chip away at the powers that are rightfully ours.

As I said, Quebec is a pioneer in many areas. We have a proven track record when it comes to labour. Quebec knows how to train its workforce. Quebec knows how to recognize the skills of its workers. Quebec knows how to meet its regional needs, and Quebec knows how to collaborate when it is useful, but Quebec does not need a federal arbiter, a national framework, a new bureaucracy or a new structure. This bill does not address the labour shortage. If anything, it addresses Ottawa's need to always be involved.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-266 in recognition of Quebec's jurisdiction over its workers and its labour market.

Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty Act

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to rise and speak to this bill on the Red River Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty.

I want to begin with respect for the Manitoba Métis Federation. The work we discussed today did not appear overnight. It reflects decades of organizing, advocacy, negotiations and constitutional work done by the Manitoba Métis Federation and the Red River Métis citizens.

The Red River Métis people have fought for recognition and their place on the land since before Canada became a country in 1867. In most recent history, the agreement itself records a long path, a 2016 framework agreement, a 2018 incremental reconciliation plan, a 2000 interim fiscal financing agreement and a 2021 self-government recognition and implementation agreement, all leading up to today.

The treaty also links itself to the unfinished reconciliation identified in the Manitoba Métis Federation v. Canada action.

I want to acknowledge President Chartrand and his leadership, which has led to the Manitoba Métis Federation becoming a socio-economic driving force in Winnipeg, Manitoba and beyond.

I also want to show respect for those other indigenous governments for helping with the conversation about what could be improved within the treaty and for their courage for respectfully bringing their concerns to the broader discussion. I know from experience that indigenous critics can experience the most severe forms of abuse from outsiders and insiders via lateral violence, despite the shared goal of building solid foundations for future generations.

As members of Parliament, we have a duty to combat such abuse and bring respectful dialogue to such important matters, and this is a very important matter. We need to take the time to make sure this bill that proposes to bring the agreement into Canadian law and constitutional law is well-built. This is why this debate should not be reduced to a false choice between reconciliation and scrutiny. Parliament can support reconciliation and still insist on precision. In fact, when legislation will constitutionalize a treaty under sections 25 and 35, precision is a part of reconciliation.

Conservatives support treaty rights. We support Métis self-government. We support modern agreements that are durable, constitutional and workable. We even support the Manitoba Métis Federation's choice, as is their right, to negotiate and enter into an agreement that empowers them to move away from the Ottawa bureaucracy.

As a first nations person, I would not personally support growing the ISC bureaucracy as a part of implementing this treaty. A key part of the Manitoba Métis Federation's self-governance is its freedom to choose its partners even if ISC has shown a long history of being unreliable and abusive to other indigenous communities. Supporting the Manitoba Métis Federation's self-determination and governance over its own people does not require us as legislators to ignore potential challenges with implementation. It requires us to confront them before they become drawn-out lawsuits, which can still happen despite the best efforts of drafters, and to anticipate and resolve disputes in more conciliatory ways. It requires us to ask whether consultation in other indigenous communities was sufficient to anticipate the potential challenges this treaty might face.

The first reason for caution is that the treaty itself says that it is a treaty within the meaning of sections 25 and 35, that it has the force of law, is binding on all persons and bodies, and engages the honour of the Crown. Once Parliament gives effect to that, the courts, not the ministers, become the final interpreters of what this text means. If Parliament leaves ambiguity in a constitutional instrument, Parliament is not choosing flexibility, but risking future litigation.

The implementation legislation before us would give the treaty and future Manitoba Métis Federation laws the force of federal law, which would prevail in many areas over inconsistent other federal laws. Among other features, it has the potential to give non-Manitoba Métis Federation police forces and provinces the power to enforce Manitoba Métis Federation laws on non-members of Manitoba Métis Federation, including the possibility of the power to prosecute and imprison accused individuals. Because the Manitoba Métis Federation is not definitively geographically bound or defined in the treaty, Manitoba Métis Federation laws could potentially apply anywhere inside western Canada and beyond. Several Métis groups have made the point that the Manitoba Métis Federation jurisdiction should not extend to other Métis traditional homelands and territories, and that it should be up to the Métis justice systems, not the Crown courts, to determine what Métis laws mean and how they apply.

Modern treaties have the opportunity to place aboriginal and non-aboriginal relations in a shared legal system where we can build certainty, continuity, transparency and predictability.

Ambiguous modern treaty drafting can produce years of conflict. It is not fearmongering to remember the decades of history when interpretation and poor relations resulted in unintended division. Canada still lives with that today. We see this playing out in British Columbia. Governments, federal and provincial, are learning hard lessons about focusing their work on reconciliation rhetoric rather than the hard work needed to bring as many people along as possible, indigenous Canadians and non-indigenous Canadians alike.

There is much in the treaty that deserves acknowledgement. It recognizes Red River Métis self-determination and the inherent right of self-government. It recognizes the Manitoba Métis Federation as the government of the Red River Métis in paragraph 9. It provides concrete jurisdiction now over citizenship, leadership selection, internal operations, accountability, administration, enforcement and related matters. This is serious work, and it deserves respect, but respect for the work done by the Manitoba Métis Federation does not erase the duty of Parliament to ask what this text does, what it does not do and what it may be read to do later.

The next area of concern is the definition of Red River Métis, relationships with other Métis governments and the question of constitutional space for others. The Red River Métis should be the ultimate authority on determining who is Red River Métis. Paragraph 1 defines the Red River Métis as an “Indigenous collectivity...originally established within the historic Northwest and centred in the Red River Valley,” distinct from any other indigenous collectivity and collectively holding section 35 rights, including the inherent right to self-government.

Paragraph 10 then says the Red River Métis acts “exclusively” through the Manitoba Métis Federation in exercising collectively held rights, in pursuing scrip claims and in Crown consultation respecting potential adverse effects on Red River Métis section 35 rights.

Paragraph 19 adds that any existing section 35 rights of self-government in respect of the definition of Red River Métis and the exclusive representation of the Red River Métis by the Manitoba Métis Federation continue and will be exercised in accordance with the treaty.

To many Red River Métis citizens, these provisions are long overdue recognition and nation building. That perspective needs to be heard. However, to other Métis governments, these same provisions raise alarms. The treaty's definitions and scope are read as expansive and ambiguous. We have heard from other Métis nations the concern that the treaty may fail to leave constitutional space for other Métis groups. Once implemented, it will be binding on third parties, including other federally recognized Métis governments. Self-government agreements and treaties with different Métis and other indigenous governments must coexist with each other.

There are strengths in drafting this agreement with flexibility and limiting language, but there is also too much ambiguity. Paragraph 13 says nothing in the treaty may be interpreted to determine the geographical location or the extent of the Red River Métis. There is also nothing in the treaty to imply that the Red River Métis is the only Métis collective under section 35. It also does not imply that the Manitoba Métis Federation represents any other Indigenous collectivity than the Red River Métis. It preserves the possibility that there are other Métis collective rights holders, which is a good thing, established before effective European control, that include individuals with Red River Métis ancestry and may hold distinct section 35 rights. Those are important safeguards, and any fair reading of the treaty should say so.

There is respect from other Métis governments that have also worked for years at securing recognition of their own rights-bearing communities and self-government agreements. Their concern is not that the Manitoba Métis Federation should have no treaty. It is quite the opposite. Various Métis groups appreciate, celebrate and support Canada's modern treaty-making with Métis governments and recognize the Manitoba Métis Federation's right to pursue self-determination through this agreement.

A second area of concern is land and aboriginal rights ambiguity. Supporters of the bill frame this as an internal governance treaty, not a land claims treaty. The treaty's immediate operative jurisdictions are about governance, citizenship, internal structures, accountability, adjudication and related institutional matters, not a direct land transfer.

In recent months, disagreements about how treaties and other agreements about land-based rights should be interpreted have led to much uncertainty on the part of Canadians and much undeserved ignorance, interpretation and hatred directed toward indigenous peoples. Canada's failure to be precise and to communicate about several recent agreements in B.C. has caused harm to everyone. If Canada wants to say now that the Manitoba Métis Federation treaty does not recognize land-related rights, it has a duty to spell that out explicitly, inclusive of protecting fee simple property.

Too often, it seems the current government wants to intentionally leave in that ambiguity so it can take credit but not responsibility for the decisions made. Why does this matter? Chapter 9 lays out the process for future supplementary self-government arrangements in areas including wildlife, migratory birds, and fish harvesting and management; environmental assessment and protection; administration of justice; and any other matters reasonably related to self-determination, self-government, or other rights and interests of the Red River Métis. For many first nations and other indigenous peoples, a traditional paradigm is that we are a part of the land, inclusive of wildlife and plant life.

Paragraph 88 goes further and says that the treaty contemplates future negotiation or recognition of Manitoba Métis Federation jurisdiction over lands that may be held by the Red River Métis, and the preamble of the treaty itself refers to the unfulfilled land-grant provisions of the Manitoba Act, implying the potential for redress.

For non-indigenous Canadians, especially those worried about their recreational or life-sustaining use of the land, it is important not to inflame fear. This treaty would not, on its face, threaten fee simple title. It does not contain a clause expropriating private home ownership. However, it would create a legal framework that could affect future consultation questions, future jurisdictional negotiations and future litigation over the scope of rights. The responsible position is neither alarm nor denial. It is clarity.

For indigenous folks, especially Métis, first nations and Inuit people, the issue is equally serious but different. It is whether constitutionality can be protected via a treaty drafted in a way that leaves room for one indigenous government's hard-won recognition without crowding the constitutional room needed by others. It is whether reconciliation is being advanced through careful pluralism or through avoidable conflict. It is also about whether an indigenous community needs recognition in a treaty in order for its self-government rights to be exercised.

The Liberal government must acknowledge the push-back it received on Bill C-53 in consideration of the bill before us, not because the Manitoba Métis Federation is in the same category as other Métis in question in Bill C-53 but because other indigenous concerns were expressed explicitly. A fundamental question must be answered by the government, a question that I have received and that I know the Liberal government has received as well: How would this treaty overlap with the historic numbered treaties in Canada?

We cannot shy away from the fact that the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs in Alberta recently passed a resolution against the proposed treaty in question today. The chiefs of Treaty 3 in Ontario have said, in a submission to the Liberal government, that they have concerns about pre-approved modern treaties that will supersede historic Confederation-era treaties, practically making them second-class citizens. We have heard and we know that with the Liberal government, there has been little to no consultation with first nations across the numbered treaties in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba regarding the bill.

The Liberal government has started a significant consultation on Bill S-2 while doing no consultation on things like Bill C-5, and now, again, first nations are questioning the inconsistent politics being played by the government on when consultation is used and when it is not used. These concerns are real, and I know the Manitoba Métis Federation is aware of these concerns from first nations as well. I do not hear any indigenous nation, Métis, Inuit or first nation, wanting to see other indigenous peoples fail, but the process and details must be addressed. All of these types of agreements and treaties must live together, and we as indigenous and non-indigenous peoples must coexist.

A third area of concern is everyday predictability in governance and in how we grow the Canadian economy. The Canada Energy Regulator's process in British Columbia has seen the Manitoba Métis Federation relying on the treaty and the Red River Métis homeland claims to assert consultation rights far beyond the Red River, two provinces away. This can result in confusion, cost and delay in resource development. The impacts are not only political disputes but real, on-the-ground impacts that can hold back timely growth of Canada's economy for all treaty peoples.

As Parliament constitutionalizes a treaty whose wording and surrounding narratives are already being used in regulatory settings, Parliament has a duty to consider how wording matters outside this chamber. The commitment to a financial arrangement that would meet the expenditure need of the Manitoba Métis Federation to exercise its defined self-government functions is good in concept but poorly spelled out. Those IOUs promise big buckets of potential rights and obligations and a bureaucratic framework to ensure that Ottawa would get plenty of say in how it wants to maintain control over such agreements and this indigenous nation.

That brings me to my final point. The fairest and most constructive position is not to attack the Manitoba Métis Federation or deny legitimacy of the Red River Métis self-government. It is to say we honour the work that brought this treaty here, we recognize the unfinished business of reconciliation, and we accept that the Manitoba Métis Federation has spent years building toward this milestone. However, because this treaty would be constitutionally entrenched and binding on everyone, we owe it to the Manitoba Métis Federation, other Métis governments, first nations, provinces and everyday Canadians to draft the implementation legislation with maximum clarity.

This means asking whether Bill C-21 should include explicit protections making it clear that this treaty would not negate other Métis agreements, would not make the Red River Métis the only Métis people under section 35, would not constrain future negotiations with other Métis groups, would not recognize land-related section 35 rights unless Parliament intends to say so explicitly, and would protect private property of everyday Canadians.

These proposals are not antireconciliation. They make reconciliation more stable, more transparent and more durable at a time when many Canadians feel uncertain about where we are going. Modern treaties are too important to be carried out by implication when explicit language is available. Canada's own legal history teaches us that when treaty wording is uncertain, courts will spend years, sometimes generations, trying to reconstruct the common intention of the parties, while communities and Ottawa are left to deal with the unexpected consequences.

Parliament still has time to reduce that uncertainty here, so let us proceed with respect: respect for the Manitoba Métis Federation, respect for other rights-bearing Métis communities, respect for indigenous rights, respect for legal certainty and respect for Canadians who deserve laws that are clear enough to understand and that promote unity, not down-the-road division.

We look forward to discussing how to improve this bill, with consideration of any amendments, in committee.

Natural Resources

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan.

Spring is finally on the horizon. We have been battling a bit of winter wanting to stick around. Of course, until the May long weekend comes and goes, we are never fully out of it, but I know the farmers are feeling the itch, and they are ready to get going and get the spring planting in place so they can start growing the crops for the 2026 season.

I want to take a few moments to discuss the follow-up to the question I asked the Minister of Natural Resources about any future pipeline developments here in Canada. The last pipeline that was built is now running at almost 100% capacity, and people in the oil and gas industry are wondering and waiting to know when the next export pipeline is going to be built in Canada.

Now, the government has taken the step of signing an MOU with the Province of Alberta, suggesting the Liberals are going to try to iron out the details of how they will build another pipeline, possibly, maybe. We are still waiting to find out what is going to happen with that. The MOU was signed a while ago. We have not heard of any recent developments, so we know it is going to be another substantive amount of time before we will see any movement on that.

I want to talk about how the House of Commons has actually been working together. Conservatives worked collaboratively with the government to pass Bill C-5. Bill C-5 was a bill that the Prime Minister said was needed to develop and build things at a speed not seen in a generation, those were his words, and so Conservatives thought we would play ball. We want to see major projects get built, and we want to see that happen in a timely manner. We agree.

We did not think Bill C-5 went far enough, because it did not actually repeal any of the regulations that have crippled resource development in Canada for the last 10 years or longer. What it did do was attempt to give the government the ability to circumvent a lot of those regulations to try to get projects done. It is kind of a weird way of the government admitting that it was wrong for the last 10 years. The Liberals do not want to fully admit it just yet, but they want to give themselves a workaround anyway.

When I look at the Major Projects Office list, I notice there are a lot of projects on the list, but most of those projects already had a final business decision made. Their investment was already finalized and sourced, it was in there, and they already had prior approvals. The government just dumped a bunch of projects in there to make it look like it was doing something. I will note that several of these projects, including the one I asked the minister about before, are still sitting with the status of “referred to MPO”. Not a single project on the list says it has been advanced to the next stage. They are all just sitting there, referred and still waiting.

I want to read a quote from Frances Donald of the Royal Bank of Canada: “This is an entire sector that has repeatedly been pushed into a position where it could not grow”.

The article continues:

Donald said industries—including oil and gas—need consistency for an extended period to be confident enough to invest.

“It is not one person, but it is a change of culture within a country.... We cannot expect that to come in one year with one policy or one pipeline.”

...“Everybody wants to hear there’s one thing we can do that could change the story...But that’s not a holistic way to expect business confidence to shift after over a decade of having moved the pendulum in the (other) direction.”

Here is another quote, from Cenovus Energy: “It will be difficult for the industry to grow production without 'fundamental' changes to government policies and regulations”.

With these kinds of quotes from the biggest bank in Canada and one of the biggest oil and energy producers in Canada, we have not seen any movement from the government to recognize that its policies and regulations are getting in the way. The Major Projects Office is not actually advancing projects at a rate that the Liberals said it would.

When is the government finally going to admit that it was wrong and pass the sovereignty act that the Conservative Party put forward so we can work collaboratively to get rid of the regulations that are hampering our industry?

Lawful Access Act, 2026

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to get up in the House and represent the fine people of Ponoka—Didsbury. I consider myself fairly right-wing, but my colleague from Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee is making me look like a moderate in the House today. I unfortunately do not have time to go back and alter my speech in order to keep pace with my new-found best friend. We are going to be spending a lot more time together, based on my assessment of what he had to say about the government across the way.

It is important to speak to this piece of legislation, Bill C-22, the lawful access act. It is a bit weird to stand here, because it feels like we were just talking about this last fall. This is the second kick at the cat for this piece of legislation for the government. The Liberals tried to have a similar set of laws passed in a sweeping omnibus bill, Bill C-2, but that bill did not pass, and now it seems it is being reintroduced by the government. We know that it is coming on the heels of what was a minority Parliament and is going to turn into a majority Parliament here soon. One always has to keep that in mind. If this bill is crafted the same way that the majority government here was crafted, there is no reason at all to think that this is not a sneaky piece of legislation.

The Liberals laud their talking points and their PMO comms lines that this bill would help keep Canadians safe and get crime under control. The only reason crime is not under control is that we have had 11 years of Liberals across the way. If Bill C-22 were really about law and order, limiting crime or protecting victims, Conservatives would be wholly in support of this piece of legislation, but it is actually not about any of that. It is about power, it is about control, and it has a very deeply Orwellian feel to it.

Conservatives in this country have always believed in law and order. A vital and fundamental pillar of what it means to be a Conservative is to believe in and respect the rule of law in this country. We used to actually have governments that followed the laws as well. It would be nice if we got back to that at some point in time.

The governing Liberals have had many opportunities over the last 11 years to show us that they also want to see a reduction in crime, but every chance that we put in front of this Parliament, they seem to vote against. The Liberals have an ardent history of refusing bail reform and embracing catch-and-release style legislation. Now, after a decade, they expect the opposition members to believe that they are actually serious about cracking down on crime. Well, I am not buying it.

Last week, we debated Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. One of the objectives of that bill is to prevent foreign interference. During debate of that bill, I used the example of the 700 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members who are freely living in Canada today. The government will not deport them and will not put them in jail. They are here fundraising, conducting business and harming our country every single day. The Liberals cannot say that they are serious about dealing with foreign interference if they do not deport the terrorists and criminals living in our country. They cannot say they are serious about crime and protecting Canadians without deporting these same terrorists or criminals from the country as well. They cannot have it both ways. That is because the Liberals are not serious about crime.

The Liberals are serious, however, about seizing control and having more power for themselves and their government. We know that much for sure. On Friday, my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes referred to Bill C-22 as “Bill C-2 redo”, and he is exactly right.

Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, the strong borders act, which fell short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in many areas of jurisdiction where it did not need to, like authorizing law enforcement to open up people's mail and inspect it without any due process at all. There was severe push-back on this, not only from the opposition but from hundreds of advocacy groups, who stood firmly against this legislation because of the risks it would pose to the civil liberties of the Canadian public. The Conservatives successfully blocked Bill C-2, stopping the Liberals from limiting the use of cash in transactions, opening the mail without any oversight whatsoever, and demanding that any service providers, including hospitals, financial institutions and probably even one's local dry cleaning store, disclose user data without any judicial oversight.

Bill C-22 removed some of these proposed provisions that we opposed, but reintroduced some of the proposed parts of Bill C-2 that were rejected when the Liberals held their rightful minority government. They have since reintroduced this bill, now that they know they are going to have the majority of votes in this place. It seems like an awfully convenient opportunity, does it not?

We Conservatives support giving law enforcement officers the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats and dangers evolve in the digital age, but we also believe that there need to be strong safeguards accompanying these powers.

There also need to be clear limits and independent oversight to protect the rights and freedoms of the people here in Canada. Bill C-2 was a failed piece of legislation that the opposition could not and did not support because not only did it fail to adequately address the criminal element in our society, but it infringed on the freedoms and the rights of Canadians in an unjustifiable way.

Now the Liberals seek to reintroduce many of the rejected measures of Bill C-2 in this bill today. They rebranded their failed legislation as Bill C-22 and have brought it back to this very House with their illegitimately obtained, like I said, soon-to-be majority here in the House. This should alarm Canadians, especially the 11-plus million Canadian voters who did not actually vote for a Liberal candidate in the last election.

Our caucus has been very clear in where we stand on the Liberals' obsession with big, bloated and powerful government: It is unnecessary and is a gross misuse of power.

Bill C-22 focuses specifically on telecommunications and Internet service providers while creating oversight for ministerial orders. The Liberals have already banned news from being reported on Meta. Why do they need access to Canadians' information through the Internet and telecommunications providers? Will the personal information of Canadians be shared with the government through this bill, like it would have been under Bill C-2? The government will not tell us. Can any member sitting on the government benches today give me an answer to that? If they could, they probably would not. If they did have an answer, chances are it would be wrong.

Keeping Canadians safe is just a mere disguise for the folks across the way. The Liberals have had over a decade to keep Canadians safe, and they have continuously let crime get worse. The Liberals say that Bill C-22 is needed to keep up with the rapid growth of our world's digital environment and to help keep Canadians safe, but it makes me wonder if this is actually true. I would say that in some cases it is not. Why is this? It is because the Liberals have voted down every piece of crime-reducing legislation the Conservatives have brought to the House since this Parliament commenced last May.

The Liberals have repeatedly ignored the calls of every single premier in Canada who asked for bail reform. They refused to appoint judges, so violent criminals are having their cases dismissed and timed out. This is not about crime reduction for the Liberals across the way. This is all about having an excuse and a reason to seize power and control.

Even CBC pundit Andrew Coyne, known for his staunch Conservative support, and I am kidding of course, said last week that the Prime Minister has an “autocratic streak a mile wide,” and he is showing that now. Coyne said that during a minority Parliament. How bad will it actually get in a majority parliament? It is all about control, about central control by the central banker.

Bill C-2 was about control by letting law enforcement open our mail. Bill C-9 would control what religious people are allowed to say out loud or how texts are supposed to be read. Bill C-22 would control the privacy rights of Canadians through increased government surveillance and access to information.

We know this because the Liberals have a track record of these power grabs, such as changes they proposed to make to the Standing Orders in 2016. I do not know if there are a lot of people here today who remember that, but I remember it. They were going to basically take control of this place. They did not want an opposition; they wanted an audience.

There was the former prime minister's interference in the SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2019 and subsequent firing of the first indigenous female justice minister in Canadian history. As well, we see the consistent cutting, through time allocation, of debates on important pieces of legislation. There were gag orders on government watchdogs, as well as the unnecessary invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, which saw the Liberals freeze the bank accounts of hundreds of Canadians.

There was the expansion of cabinet authority provided in Bill C-5. Bill C-15 gives ministers of the Crown permission to exempt individuals and organizations of their choosing from any federal law they want, including the Criminal Code. Now there is online surveillance and access to Canadians' information.

Every time the Liberals are tasked with solving a problem, they always choose to assert total control and dominance over the situation. They grab power for power's sake. They control people's taxes, finances, what they say, the religious texts they read aloud, the firearms they are allowed to hunt with, the things they need to believe to qualify for Canada's summer jobs money and the salmon they allowed to fish for on the west coast.

It is all about control. It is always overkill. It is always too much. It is always over the top. It never solves the problem. Then again, one cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time. Bill C-22 is of course no different.

The Conservatives have put forward so many pieces of legislation to crack down on crime and protect Canadians, but the Liberals continue to vote us down in favour of their soft-on-crime policies that repeatedly let violent offenders out on bail time and time again.

The government does not need to infringe on the rights of Canadians to solve the problem of surging crime. That problem is solved and Canadians are protected by putting violent offenders in jail, strengthening bail laws and deporting non-citizens who are guilty of committing violent crimes here in Canada. I do not see any of that in this legislation. It is because the Liberals are not serious about fixing the problem. They are only serious about garnering more control for themselves and their friends, and taking Canadians' tax dollars and putting it on their—

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is like so many other bills that show good promise and strong potential to be shaped into good policy in committee. It is right here in second reading that the problems with Bill C-22 are initially identified, and that is what my colleagues on this side of the chamber have been doing: probing, asking questions and identifying weak spots that could be eliminated or good points that could be strengthened. If after this debate the House agrees, Bill C-22 would go to committee stage where it would be debate and have amendments introduced, and then the amendments would be voted on.

Committees are an exceptional tool in which all parties can take a mediocre bill and shape it into good policy, or they can take a good bill and make it even better. We conduct witness interviews, and we incorporate the concerns of everyone until we have a bill that works for all parties, and by extension, for all Canadians. Unfortunately, this is what the Liberals have recently taken to calling obstruction, but it is not. This is how our Canadian parliamentary democracy is supposed to work. I want to address this manufactured Liberal claim of obstruction, because with the compliant media out there, if I do not tell Canadians in the House, they are not going to find out.

Contrary to the narrative of obstruction the Liberals are trying to create, we Conservatives truly did hope that the Prime Minister would steal another of our platform promises and build the so-called energy corridor he promised. We believed him when he said he would make Canada an energy superpower. We hoped he would move quickly and decisively to get our clean Canadian energy to an energy-starved world. That is why we Conservatives voted for Bill C-5 early in the Prime Minister's tenure, and with it gave him more power than any previous prime minister has ever had to achieve those goals.

The Prime Minister has more jurisdictional power than Prime Minister John A. Macdonald had when he built thousands of miles of continental railway through some of the most inhospitable terrain imaginable. The Prime Minister has technologies that would leave Macdonald in shock. We can do in a day what it took a year to do in Macdonald's day.

The Prime Minister can look down in real time from 100 kilometres above and see right into the earth with lidar. He can view the route. He can model a pipeline. He can even watch it in real time as it is built from the comfort of his airplane seat. He could have a pipeline built in two years if he wanted to, yet a year after Bill C-5, he does not even have a pipeline started. He does not have a plan to build one. He does not have a route, not even a gleam in a surveyor's eye. What would a rational person think about this?

The Prime Minister promised grand projects of great national importance. He promised a deal with the Americans by this time last year. He promised to move at speeds not seen in generations to unleash our Canadian economy. However, he has not landed in Canada long enough to move anything. Instead of an energy corridor, we have silence. Instead of housing, we have an enormously expensive bureaucracy and empty props that are taken down as soon as the photo op is over. Instead of a continental railway from coast to coast, we have a $90-billion boondoggle between two eastern cities that will likely never get built, and even that is mired in scandal and controversy before the land snatch even begins.

Unfortunately, our Prime Minister is usually absent from Ottawa, flitting about the world here and there in no particular direction, at enormous taxpayer expense and with a catering budget that would make Emperor Nero blush, all apparently to avoid hard questions in question period, since nothing much has been produced except an undergrad international relations term paper at Davos.

The reason I bring this up is that there is a problem, and I am troubled by it. If we send Bill C-22 to committee by voting for the legislation, how can we be confident the Liberals will respect the committee process and not try to do an end run around Canadians? Can we be sure that our efforts in committee will be respected by the Liberals? What is supposed to happen is all-party input, all-party witnesses, all-party debate and amendments put forward and voted on, and ultimately the result is a bill modified by the people of Canada through the process of representative democracy. That is what is supposed to happen. It is not what is actually happening, and I want to talk for a minute about what is happening.

I want to talk about a troubling tactic the Liberals are using to subvert that process. I am fearful that what happened to Bill C-11 is going to happen to Bill C-22. I am a member of the national defence committee. We recently studied Bill C-11, a bill whose central purpose is to transfer sexual assault cases from the military to the civilian justice system. I assumed, probably like most of us here, that after listening to the horror stories in the media, this would be a rubber stamp, and we would simply transfer the authority to the civilian system. However, all of us at committee were surprised.

We listened to the defence and the prosecution teams from the military argue that the studies the bill was responding to were a decade old and no longer applied to the current military culture. They argued that they had both the capability and the capacity to address the cases, and that the culture within the CAF had radically changed in those 10 years.

We listened to the civilian police, who told us that, although they had the capability, they no longer had the capacity to absorb yet more work, especially in locations with military bases close by.

Then we listened to victim after victim of sexual assault in the military. It was really the victims who surprised me and I think most of us at committee, the people I thought would have the strongest desire to move out of the military justice system. I thought perhaps one or two might say they would like to have a choice, but it turned out that just about every single witness we talked to wanted a choice between the military justice system and the civilian system.

After numerous victims spoke, it became obvious that the bill needed to be modified, so, with the support of the Bloc member on the committee, we co-operated to amend an outdated Liberal motion into one that every stakeholder, from victim to investigator, wanted. We gave the victims a choice. So far, so good. We took a bill that was okay and made it into a good bill. Late this Friday afternoon, the Minister of National Defence, in defiance of civilian and military lawyers, civilian and military police, and even the victims themselves, came into the House and tabled Bill C-11 at report stage.

He is trying to strip our amendments from the bill. Why are the Liberals doing this? We had a decent bill that we turned into a much better bill. There seems to be no explanation for it at all. Why would the Liberals defy both the military and civilian justice systems and the victims?

There is a reason. The Prime Minister has not, will not and cannot fulfill his campaign promises. The cracks in our economy have become chasms, and he needs an election before Canadians feel the full brunt of his purposeful inaction. He knows Canadians are going to start to notice the growing divide between these grandiose announcements and the cold, grey reality of their pocketbooks, so he needs a majority government, and fast. He trolled the opposition benches and, yes, sure enough, an artificial majority did manage to slither across the aisle, but the Prime Minister is afraid that his majority will unravel, since he now has both far right and far left members in his caucus. He has called this a big tent, but it has become more like a circus tent, so he needs an election.

However, the Prime Minister does not want to be blamed for calling an election, so the Liberals are banging on about obstruction to make it look like the normal processes of Parliament are somehow wrong. If he employs tactics like this now that he has a majority government, he knows it is to create the kinds of division within Parliament that he can point to and claim are obstruction. Bill C-22 may have the potential to be a good bill, if it makes it past second reading and goes to committee. My fear is that it will meet the fate of Bill C-11, be subjected to the scrutiny of experts, be modified into a much clearer, better bill, and then have all the positive changes stripped out once it hits report stage. This is obstruction, to be sure, but not by Conservatives.

Conservatives are doing what we are supposed to be doing for the benefit of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, on the other hand, are acting on behalf of the Liberal Party. They are attempting to fabricate another election that no one wants by trying to make it look like it is not their fault. This is not order and good government, but devious arrogance by the Liberals. Canadians had better brace themselves.

Government Priorities

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what our government is doing. We are creating economic benefits for Canadians across the country.

I thank my colleague for supporting Bill C-5 to once again build major projects in Canada. His province is home to some of the best examples of these projects in the country. Take, for example, Nouveau Monde Graphite, a major mine that is currently under development, or the start of construction at the Port of Montreal at Contrecoeur that was announced a week ago. Those projects are good news, and there is more to come.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure or honour of knowing David, but I do have the pleasure of knowing his father. We do not always see eye to eye, but I have a great deal of respect and a deep affection for him.

I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I can say straight away that we will be supporting Bill C-231. Having read it, I would say that this is part of the Bloc's DNA. Since its inception, the Bloc Québécois has consistently supported diversion measures.

The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. Obviously, there are cases where imprisonment is necessary and where a firm hand is required. The Criminal Code is there for a reason, and that is a good thing. Our prisons serve a purpose, but we must be cautious. We must not treat them as a panacea. Imprisoning someone is not always a useful, or the most useful, option.

Because they are younger, our young people in particular are, by nature, less experienced and less mature. They are more likely to make mistakes, sometimes minor, but sometimes more serious. In either case, as a society, we must be compassionate and seek to guide them back onto the right path rather than imprisoning them in a system that may be difficult to break free from afterwards.

We had similar discussions back then on Bill C-5. These discussions were not always easy, and we, the Bloc Québécois, supported diversion. When I read Bill C-231, it seemed like a second chance to revisit this issue in a useful way, not only for the courts as a whole, but most of all, for our young people.

Addiction is less a legal issue than a medical issue. Locking someone up in prison for any amount of time will not cure an addiction. Treatment, however, can. Does treatment always work? No, certainly not, but does that mean that treatment is not worth trying?

Whether the child involved is our child, or the child of a loved one, a neighbour, a friend or a complete stranger, rehabilitation is a worthwhile investment for any child struggling with addiction. It may not work, and at some point, it may be necessary to admit defeat and opt for harsher measures like incarceration or other alternatives. However, when a young person is struggling with this kind of problem, enlisting measures outside the legal system is not only our duty, it serves our interests as a society.

The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation, for both adults and young people. However, does a society have to invest billions of dollars to build prisons and hire guards to keep people who have committed crimes within its walls? In some cases, I would say yes, but in many others, I would say no.

Even when it comes to adults struggling with addiction, the Bloc Québécois has often said that these are cases in which diversion measures should be attempted. It is more profitable for society, more compassionate toward society as a whole and more effective, but especially when we are talking about youth rather than adults.

Our young people need love. I think that Bill C‑231 offers that. We wholeheartedly support our colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière on this bill.

I was listening to our Liberal colleague, who may have been hinting at the government's intention to propose certain amendments. There may indeed be some amendments. That said, I am pleased to see that all members of the House are on board with this idea, without division or partisanship, which is unfortunately often unhealthy. It is not because of ill will, but rather because we are often bound by the constraints of party platforms and campaign promises. That is the nature of the beast. We are here because we were elected on different platforms, and we need to stand up for our ideas.

However, there are instances like this one where the principles we uphold allow us to find common ground on a specific issue. That is the case here. I wonder whether we are dealing with a bill that could be one of the few opportunities we have to proceed by unanimous consent, or whether we could even fast-track it. I would love to see this bill come into force this spring, or as soon as possible.

As I said, I never had the pleasure of meeting David, but I would like to close by wishing him all the best.

I congratulate my friend on his bill.