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 Implementation Act

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to start off by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

It is with great honour that I rise in the House to speak on behalf of the hard-working folks of Elmwood—Transcona. My speech today will centre on the spring economic statement, with a specific focus on the updates regarding trades and labour. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I worked as a construction electrician. My last day on a ladder was actually March 21, 2025, just two days before the election was called, and I am still the sitting vice-president of my local, IBEW Local 2085 in Winnipeg.

When I reviewed the spring economic update, I was thankful to see some efforts that would benefit Red Seal tradespeople through a plan to recruit and train 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trade workers by 2030, with a 50% reduction in time. To do this, the Liberal government wants to give Red Seal tradespeople a national registered apprenticeship number. However, the major problem that would arise is that different jurisdictions have different rules in place that would need to be addressed before any interprovincial harmonization could take place.

Furthermore, following the implementation of this plan, the Liberal government wants to have more training and exams be online, but as we learned during COVID, online training is not really effective for the trades. Trades training requires real-life scenarios and hands-on instruction. These critical classes must continue to be taught in person so apprentices can receive training in real-world environments and so they can become comfortable with the powerful equipment they will be operating.

Right off the bat, the online testing plan and secure credentials would have adverse effects on trade workers who are trained under the current system. As I said, different jurisdictions have different certification processes and training requirements. According to the Liberal government, its goal is to build one Canadian economy instead of 13. The unintended consequence of this is that a national registered apprenticeship number would force a top-down standardized system that would not have automatic buy-in from the provinces. Extensive consultation would be required with all the provinces to get their buy-in on a national apprenticeship system. It is a bit of a “cart before the horse” thing.

Furthermore, several active federal apprenticeship grants were shut down by the current Liberal government without justification. Just one year ago, in 2025, the apprenticeship incentive grant, the apprenticeship incentive grant for women, and the apprenticeship completion grant were all shut down. In addition, in 2024, the apprenticeship service program was shut down. All these programs, which were designed to support apprentices through their education, were very important to young Canadians looking to break into the trades. They were supports I relied on when I was an apprentice, yet they were all closed by the Liberal government.

Now the Liberal government has decided to enact the build Canada apprenticeship service, with a new announcement of the same apprenticeship grant it cancelled just one year ago. The government is essentially trying to take credit for creating a program exactly the same as the one it shut down. While the Liberals are patting themselves on the back, many apprentices who relied on that funding left their journey in the Canadian trades because the government turned its back on them. The cuts undoubtedly had significant impacts on apprentices who were already in the training program.

In a 2025 article, the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada pleaded for the government not to abandon apprenticeship supports, explaining that 70% of apprentices used the original apprenticeship incentive grant to cover the cost of training expenses such as tools, and 32% of apprentices used part of the grant for general living costs. We need to support Canadians who are eager to build. The last thing the Liberal government should be doing is turning its back on them.

In 2024, I read a Global News article titled, “Manitoba stakeholders concerned as federal government tosses apprenticeship grants”. This article predicted the very concerns that trade workers had with the government's decision to cut the apprenticeship grants. Darryl Harrison, director of stakeholder engagement with the Winnipeg Construction Association, was interviewed in the same article and said, “the removal of this grant seems like a backward step to us.”

Many apprentices counted on receiving the grant from the government and not needing to get a loan. Curtis Haines, an electrical apprentice at the time, stated that losing the apprenticeship incentive grant may have been a deal breaker for many of his peers and colleagues who had other financial responsibilities such as bills and young families. When I started in the electrical trade, I was a late bloomer in the trade, with small children. I needed every dollar of support I could get. Those grants helped me make ends meet, and many of my classmates at the time relied on those same supports.

Another piece of worker policy in the spring economic update that I want to address is the Liberal government's promise to quicken the process of training new Red Seal skilled trade workers by 50%. Rushing the training of Red Seal trade workers can have negative impacts on their education, especially when it comes to their safety training. It is clear to me that the Liberals want to treat workers as inputs on a spreadsheet, to get workers certified as quickly as possible so they can get each unit under way, regardless of the risk. In reality, it is important for apprentices to have the quality education and training that prepares them for the job site. Job sites can often be a dangerous workplace.

Another major issue that the spring economic update fails to mention is that there has not been any additional funding for seats in post-secondary institutions that provide training. For example, in Manitoba, Red River College Polytechnic, a post-secondary institution offering many skilled trades programs, has been forced to temporarily shut down certain programs because of inconsistent messaging around support from the federal government

On top of program cancellations, post-secondary institutions have had to reduce seat capacity and cut the number of students accepted into the programs. Many instructors have been laid off due to course cancellations. Many programs have waiting lists but cannot expand capacity because the spring economic statement expanded funding to only a portion of the training journey of an apprentice. Red River College Polytechnic is hardly the only one. Many trades colleges across Canada have faced similar issues.

The reality is that there seems to be a disconnect between what the Liberal government plans on doing and the situation we are currently facing on the ground. The Liberals are claiming that they want to add a significant number of new Red Seal trained trade workers, yet educational institutions no longer have the resources nor the capacity to welcome new students. The Liberals have no plan to address these shortages, and the longer they continue to ignore what is happening on the ground, the more unrealistic their targets will become. This sounds familiar.

Their plan also fails to explain how they will make sure that skilled trade workers will continue having good-paying and reliable jobs available to them in Canada. In the spring economic update, the Liberal Party claims that, with the team Canada strong plan, they would be creating clear pathways for young Canadians to get into good jobs. They are quite sure that these job opportunities will arise, yet they are simply ignoring the fact that, according to StatsCan, there are 207,000 unemployed Canadians in the trades right now.

How can Canadian workers have faith in the system when the system is not interested in looking out for them? The unfortunate reality is that after we worked with the Liberals to pass Bill C-5 nearly one year ago, giving them sweeping infrastructure powers with the development of the Major Projects Office, nothing has come of it. It is a shame that we are not building in this country. After 11 years of inaction, we have simply fallen behind globally.

For people who are not familiar with the trades, I will explain that apprenticeship training can be broken down into two main sections: technical training in the classroom and field hours on the job site. Field hours are the most important part of any apprenticeship training in the trades, and without adequate field hours, an apprentice will not secure their Red Seal certification. Simply put, apprentices need jobs in order to continue building infrastructure in Canada. With the lack of jobs, apprentices are having greater difficulty completing their training.

The Liberals can throw all the money at training and programs that they want to. However, if we want to truly support the workers of tomorrow, we need to get trades jobs flowing in Canada. The Liberals should be focusing on finding solutions to the problems they have ignored over the last decade. It is not enough to just encourage young Canadians who are looking to get into the trades as a possible future to get certified, only to find out that they will not be able to find job opportunities.

The road back from this mess starts with support for trades colleges, certainty that apprentice funding remains constant, a clear promise to never cut trades funding again, and a push to get major projects going and to get jobs flowing back into Canada.

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand part of my colleague's argument, and I would like her to explain it.

She criticized the government for shutting down debate and shutting off the cameras. However, in June of last year, the Liberals did the same thing during the study of Bill C-5 on projects of national interest. Who supported that closure motion? It was supported by her party, the Conservative Party.

I would simply like her to explain why it was okay to turn off the cameras and support the closure motion last year, but it is no longer acceptable this year.

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

Madam Speaker, from my point of view, as leader of the Green Party, I did not think it was working terribly well in the minority Parliament because the Conservatives supported every egregious Liberal bill like Bill C-5. I still feel the pain of the bulldozer across my back when I think of Monday, June 16, 2025. I do not forget, because June 18 was a Wednesday, and I went to Marc Garneau's funeral in Montreal. I then went back online to try to fight off the changes in Bill C-5, and by Friday, Bill C-5 was done. That was offensive to democracy. This is offensive to democracy. We can make Parliament work better, yes we can, but that is not an excuse for bulldozing through bills that need work.

Democratic Institutions

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are confusing their parliamentary majority with the right to do what they want, when they want. The time allocations never seem to stop, which is especially odd considering that their bills are certain to pass.

Yesterday, it was Bill C‑30, which authorizes the government to approve the use of previously banned pesticides. Today, it is Bill C‑22, which authorizes the invasive surveillance of Canadians. That comes on top of lots of other legislation, like the legislation arising from Bill C‑5, under which the Prime Minister is giving himself the power to circumvent laws.

Are the Liberals so quick to resort to time allocations because they want to keep the public in the dark about the scope of their abuse of power?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to what the parliamentary secretary just said, it is important for Canadians to know that there is a big difference between using closure or time allocation at one stage of a bill in the House and shutting the bill down at every stage so there is no possibility of committee study. On Bill C‑5, we moved it forward, but we had detailed committee study and amendments from the Conservatives that improved that bill. In this case, the bill is being shut down at all stages with no committee study, no report stage and no third reading debate.

I think it is because, in part, the housing minister is afraid to come to the human resources committee, where we sit—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, back in the day, Peter Van Loan sat a couple of desks in front of me. That was when the current leader of the Conservative Party participated in programming motions. They brought motions like what we have today well over 100 times. Earlier this year, we even saw Conservatives vote in favour of time allocation, or a motion of this nature, because they recognized that Bill C‑5 was an important piece of legislation.

It seems that the Conservatives have supported the need for time allocation and programming. Given their recent filibustering behaviour, in order to get this over the goal line and build on Canadian homes, having these measures is really important.

I am wondering if the minister would provide his thoughts on working collaboratively with provinces and other stakeholders and on how important it is that the federal government take the lead, which is exactly what we are doing with the passage of this bill.

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to debate back and forth with my colleague, because, as I said, we helped the Liberals pass Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act. We needed it. We co-operated. They needed it to make the economy stronger, but they have not used the bill once. Even when we are trying to help them grow the economy, they fail.

I will take no lessons from the colleague across the way. We will do our job and study legislation, but when we do help, they still cannot get the job done.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no. We do not have to agree to it. The opposition parties are guaranteed those 26 days, which do not include the many days when the Conservatives brought in concurrence motions.

Here is why it is important. If the Conservatives follow along, they will better understand why there is time allocation. Let us look at the legislative agenda. There is Bill C-3, the Citizenship Act; Bill C-4, the carbon tax cut; Bill C-8 respecting cybersecurity; Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act; and Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a piece of legislation I know the minister responsible for crime is very keen on.

We have Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act; Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act; Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-13, respecting trade in Great Britain. We also had Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and Bill C-20. Bill C-14 is the bail and sentencing reform legislation. I was just speaking about Bill C-16. There was filibustering even on that legislation.

There is Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, which the Conservatives were criticizing in the speech before mine. There is Bill C-21, the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act, and Bill C-22, the lawful access act. When we brought in Bill C-2 regarding lawful access, the Conservatives said, “absolutely not”. They were going to oppose it, and there was no way they were going to let it pass. We had to bring in Bill C-22, and they are still opposing it.

There is Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Do members remember that one? I just made reference to it. Everyone agreed to it, yet the Conservatives still made the bells ring because they really did not want to debate, apparently.

Bill C-26 would authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. Conservatives talk a lot about housing and affordability, even though the average cost of a house has gone down since the new Prime Minister was elected. The average cost of rent has gone down since the Prime Minister was elected. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives.

The list goes on. Bill C-28, one I really like, is the Canadian space launch act. There is a whole industry, and there is industry potential. Thousands of jobs could be created. However, all the Conservatives say is that they do not like it and do not want it. We have to force legislation through.

That is not to mention the Senate bills. I can say that the Government of Canada, headed by our newly elected Prime Minister, has a very aggressive legislative agenda because we want to and will, despite what the Conservatives continue to put in our way, continue to fight and bring in legislation that is going to make our communities safer and stronger. As the Prime Minister says, we want a strong Canada for all Canadians. That is what we are striving for. We are saying we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7.

All one needs to do is look at the actions that the government and the Prime Minister have taken since the last election. All I made reference to was the legislation. In that legislation, there are a number of initiatives that complement the legislation. That is all part of the budget process and what the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act, is all about. It is the next step in supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada, but the Conservatives still want to filibuster.

Let us look at what took place at the standing committee. On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more time. They had 30 hours. From what I have been told by many of my colleagues and have heard from across the way, it was a filibuster show, with no discussions back and forth that could have taken place. That is a decision made depending on the motions that are brought forward. I know how standing committees work. When there is collaboration, good ideas and a willingness to work together, a standing committee can be very productive. I know that because there was a day I participated in standing committees. There is so much potential for all of us to work more collaboratively together on a wide spectrum of budgetary issues and legislative issues.

In fact, with respect to legislative issues, the first thing we did when we formed a majority government, contrary to what the Conservatives will say, is that we actually passed Conservative opposition private members' bills through to different stages. I suspect there is a real chance that under the Prime Minister since we have been a majority, in eight, nine or 12 weeks, whatever period of time it is, we have probably passed more opposition initiatives than Stephen Harper did in his four-year mandate. It would not surprise me if this is in fact the case.

I challenge members opposite to show me what private members' initiatives from the floor of the House of Commons actually passed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the table, and contrast that to what we have done in eight weeks. There is no surprise there, because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to collaboration. Where there is a willingness to collaborate, we collaborate.

Let us take a look in terms of all the provinces. Let us talk about the major projects. Let us talk about Bill C-5, which I made reference to. That was possible only because of the collaboration between provinces and Ottawa under the Prime Minister. There is a reason we had the King of Canada make the throne speech. The King of Canada came in a historic moment and delivered the throne speech here. It was a significant time in Canada's history.

I think that, coming out of the election, we all need to recognize what was taking place prior to the last federal election. Canadians were concerned about our economy. They were concerned about what I classify as the three Ts: President Trump, the issue of tariffs and the issue of trade. We have consistently taken actions to address the issues Canadians have faced and will face yesterday, today and, obviously, looking forward into tomorrow.

All one needs to do is take a look at the actions we have actually taken. Shortly after the last federal election, numerous meetings took place between the Prime Minister and premiers, with the idea, as we said to Canadians in the last election, of building one Canadian economy. Based on what was taking place with President Trump in the United States, and to address the anxiety and the concerns Canadians had, the Prime Minister was working hand in hand with provinces.

By doing that, we were able to build a consensus. We were able to bring in the legislation. We were able to take down the federal barriers, interprovincial barriers that the federal government is responsible for, which enabled us to be able to talk and continue the dialogue with provinces to take down those provincial barriers that prevent the trade between provinces. We have had some success in doing even that. We continue to have dialogue with provinces.

All one needs to do is take a look at a province such as Alberta. In the province of Alberta, we are now implementing an MOU that was signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta. The Conservatives can criticize that, but I believe that the Premier of Alberta is right in her assessment, as is the federal government, of the way in which we can in fact build Canada and make Canada a superpower when it comes to energy.

All one needs to do is to look at the consensus building that we have been able to bring together by working collaboratively through major projects from coast to coast to coast. There have been serious investments in things such as wind power and the expansion of energy opportunities on the east coast, as well as something I often talk about, which is the expansion of the Montreal port. We can take a look at Ontario and how we are enhancing the nuclear industry in Ontario through major projects.

In my home province of Manitoba, the Premier of Manitoba is NDP, but we work with all political entities. The people of Manitoba have realized that, for the first time in generations, there is now opportunity to have hope in regard to the port of Churchill and the potential of its becoming a port where things such as, potentially, LNG and certain minerals could go through, let alone other opportunities through agriculture. These are very tangible and real in my home province.

In Saskatchewan, we could talk about copper investments through the major projects. On the canola front, the Prime Minister was able to deal with it, at least in part and far more than what we saw when the leader of the Conservative Party was seated around the caucus table. We could talk about Alberta and B.C., the two of them together, whether it is on the issue of coming up with agreements on pipelines, LNG and other fossil fuels, or mining.

We could talk about northern Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister, was in, I believe, Yellowknife in northern Canada. I am not 100% sure it was Yellowknife, but he made the announcement about how we are going to protect Canadian sovereignty by investing literally billions of dollars. We have great potential, major investments, coast to coast to coast.

The government recognizes that building a stronger infrastructure, improving our economic corridors, if I can put it that way, through trade, means a great deal to our nation. It is where our future is in terms of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. We have a Prime Minister who goes out and looks for investment. We have commitments for billions of dollars of foreign investment to come to Canada. In fact, foreign direct investment coming to Canada in the last 12 months, if it is not number one in the G7, which I believe it is, it could be as high as number one in the G20 countries. That factors out some of the commitments that were also made.

There is reason for us to be optimistic, because we have a government that understands the importance of investment, of bringing and building our infrastructure. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to enhancing where we can and being patient with the United States in regard to the trade file. We are not going to capitulate. We will continue to advocate for the very best deal for Canadians, and where we need to, we are assisting industries that are being hurt by the negotiations and what is taking place in the United States.

Let us recognize this: We have had 20 trade and defence agreements, and we have agreements in the making. I often talk about how important the United States is, and everyone should recognize that. I recognize that, but let there be no doubt that we have a government and a Prime Minister committed to expanding our trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. That is where we got the 20 defence and trade agreements, and we also have had formal trade agreements not only signed off but brought into the House and passed as trade legislation.

I could also talk about the trade potential between Canada and India, two great nations. I would welcome and love to see a formal agreement signed off this year. The Prime Minister has met with the prime minister and the president of two great nations.

The opportunities are real and tangible, which is why there have been 17%, I believe, export increases to non-U.S.A. locations. Our government continues to work, day in and day out, at expanding opportunities for businesses, small, medium and large alike, because we realize the real beneficiaries from those are the citizens of Canada, and they are who we will continue to work for every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply offensive. The point of Parliament is to actually have respectful debate and discussion and make sure bills are adequately studied before they are passed. The track record of programming motions on Bill C-5 and this one on Bill C-30 sets extremely dangerous precedence.

Parliament is not a mere waste of time for a CEO in a hurry. Parliament is essential to Westminster parliamentary democracy, and we are here to represent our constituents. Regardless of party, views need to be heard. Again, if we all could work together better, it would be by not allowing prepared written speeches.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is often that I find myself here wondering if this place has turned into something not quite like a sports arena, in the style of the Trump White House, with its caged sport for the celebration of 250 years of independence, which is a topic that is not necessarily connected to this at all, but, for sporting spectacles, this place sometimes resembles nothing more than target practice for teams that live in glass houses. It is difficult to watch. I know that I must have a glass house somewhere, but with the Green Party never having been in power, we have less of a record to attack.

I do vividly recall when the Harper administration started using, as a matter of course, very long omnibus budget bills, which the Liberals of the day decried as burying too much in one bill, not properly reflecting or advancing the initial version of the budget and being done routinely.

We then had, of course, the Harper administration bringing in repetitive motions for time allocation. I remember the first time I had started noticing that it had become quite routine. I went back, looked it up and found out that, over a period of 40 years, which is not that far back in our history, it had happened about 10 times. I started adding them up and keeping track, and it became hundreds of times.

Of course, when in opposition, the Liberals pledged that they would never bring in omnibus budget bills containing many different measures in one piece of legislation and that they certainly would not use time allocation to shorten the time we have available to do those things. Again, both of the large parties live in, I must say, very large and well-equipped glass homes, but they are still throwing rocks at the same glass houses in which they live.

They have both moved to omnibus budget bills once in power. The Liberals have done it, first under former prime minister Trudeau and now under the current Prime Minister. They also have continued to use time allocation.

My own plea comes from my own little perch on parliamentary procedure. I know that it is against the rules of this place to have a member stand to deliver a written speech. If we followed that rule, I believe House leaders would be able to come to an agreement more quickly about how many speakers it would take to get a bill through the House.

Listening to debate on the motion so far, I am reminded that, as the parliamentary secretary says to us all, we have to use time allocation or we cannot get this passed. To which I say, again, this is a glass house. It is like a child who has killed both of their parents pleading for mercy because they are an orphan.

Why are we under time pressure? It is because the government of the day decided that we could shorten the amount of time we are sitting in June. Let us eliminate two days and create more pressure, meaning that it has to be passed now. Why is there no discussion about sitting longer? Why is there no discussion about what happened between when Bill C‑30 was first tabled on April 29 and when we next got back to it?

After three hours of debate, the government moved time allocation on Bill C‑30. It is not a massive omnibus budget bill, but it is omnibus enough that I certainly had no indication that I was going to come across division 8, which has the most regressive pieces of the deregulation of pesticide legislation that I have seen.

Believe it or not, as I know I look like a mere slip of a girl, someone who has just barely left law school, I have been working on pesticide issues for 51 years. This is the worst piece of deregulation I have ever seen, and it is inside an omnibus budget bill.

I would be happy to support many of the provisions in the spring economic statement. There are some I would not. That is the nature of an omnibus bill. There are many things affecting many different bills, done all in one vote and all in one go. This time it is with the added factor that we do not have a lot of time.

Who controls the timing? The government controls the timing. Who controls what bills come forward for debate, for Government Orders, for orders of the day? The government side does that.

My hon. friends on the finance committee, I must say, performed the most extraordinary filibuster I have ever seen, in terms of creativity. I sat through all of it because I kept hoping against hope that we would maybe get to clause-by-clause and that my amendments could be discussed and debated.

However, again, the pattern of the House of Commons since forever has been that the parties in opposition will use whatever tools they have at their disposal. It was decades ago that the Conservatives left the bells ringing for days. It takes a while, but the government regroups and finds a new way to get around that particular effort to put a spanner in the works. This is not uncommon, but what is uncommon is the use of programming motions, and I say this to my hon. colleagues on the Liberal benches.

The first extremely offensive programming motion, in my experience as a member of Parliament since 2011, was what happened in June last year with the programming motion on Bill C-5, which saw us take the most extraordinary seizure of power and expansion to the power of the executive cabinet in a bill, Bill C-5, which included provisions I never thought I would see in Canada, and say that, if in passing this law we break other laws we have already passed, that is okay. This is based on a historical and never-used-in-Canada archival bit of trivia. It was Henry VIII who came up with that. If in passing this law, we break other laws we have passed before, that is okay. This extraordinary abuse of power was in Bill C-5, building Canada strong and reducing interprovincial trade barriers in part 1, which went through this place. I will never forget it because I still feel like I was caught under a bulldozer going right over me. It was Monday, June 16, when the programming motion took effect, and second reading took place with limited debate to pass it to committee.

By the way, on the Monday, June 16, we did not even have a committee in place yet to deal with the bill. On Tuesday, June 17 at 3:30 p.m., the committee was put in place, one committee for all these provisions. Then the committee could start hearing witnesses in the afternoon. By Wednesday at noon, all amendments were due and so on until we got through report stage and third reading, both on Friday, June 20. Then we were adjourned for the summer, and we were told it was a monstrous hurry that we have a Major Projects Office. It was very important to able to see projects come through this process, which is why we could not, as I pleaded at the time, stay longer through the summer, discuss this bill, debate this bill, to see whether this extreme sweeping accumulation of powers by the executive was in any way justified. They said we were in a hurry, except it has been a whole year now, and the bill has not been used once to name a project through Bill C-5.

Again, here we are on Motion No. 12 on Bill C-30. I am thankful for the way the unanimous consent motion was structured. I will have a chance to speak at third reading on Bill C-30 on the specifics of the part I most decry. I still hope against hope that the finance committee tomorrow will see fit to accept the amendments I have put forward and deemed to be moved. I have been, as I said, patiently waiting while admiring the artistry of the Conservative filibuster. I must say I have had more fun watching paint dry. It is always more interesting. On the other hand, it was artful. Although I do not agree with why the Conservatives were filibustering, I do sometimes, as a person who is observing glass houses more than living in them, enjoy the karma of the whole thing.

I will vote against Motion No. 12 because it is offensive to democracy to have programming motions that say we must move fast, that we must not debate, that we must not consider. I find over and over again that there has been nothing like the current government for moving fast, and there has been nothing like the current government for treating Parliament with a kind of casual contempt. As a Canadian and someone who deeply believes in Westminster parliamentary democracy, I personally find it offensive. I may be the only one, but I think Canadians want to see this place respected and want to know that every bill has been properly studied. For one, I would be prepared to say that if properly studying bills means we cut into the summer and we are in Ottawa longer to do it, that is the right thing to do.

Indigenous Affairs

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been one year since the Liberals fast-tracked Bill C-5, gutting environmental protections and indigenous rights, but now with Bill S-2, which would eliminate sexism and racism from the Indian Act, they suddenly hide behind the need to consult.

First Nations everywhere have told the government that there is no need to consult on ending sexism and racism, so will the minister end the spin cycle, stop the excuses and pass Bill S-2 before the summer adjournment?

International Trade

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for CUSMA, the Prime Minister's concessions to the Americans go even further. Through Bill C-5, he has granted himself the power to suspend laws in order to build new pipelines. The big winners are the shareholders of oil companies, 60% of whom are American. Under Bill C-30, he is granting himself the power to re-approve banned pesticides. The big winner is Bayer, which sells Monsanto's American seeds and pesticides.

The Prime Minister is concentrating power in his own hands, but it is the Americans who are benefiting from it. Is that really his definition of Canada strong?

Protecting Victims Act

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this evening with colleagues debating this important issue. That is what we do in the House. We debate, we discuss important issues for Canadians and we have some great discussions.

One thing, though, that is really not debatable, if we believe at all in evidence, is that the Liberals have had a failed justice policy, and the last decade has been one where Canadians have demonstrably suffered when it comes to justice.

As a former member of the justice committee, I will never forget when a witness, who was a victim of crime herself, appeared and said that in Canada now we have a legal system, but we do not have a justice system. I was very impacted by those words and determined, like many of my colleagues on this side, to listen to those voices and make a better, truly just system that Canadians could be proud of and that would make them feel safe.

I know if I asked my constituents, and I do, and if many here asked their constituents if they felt safer than they did 10 years ago, they would say that things have changed. Do they feel safe to send their kids to the mall or to walk to school? Do they feel safe when they leave their home? Do they feel safe to leave their vehicle? In the community I live in, my whole life, we did not lock our car doors. Many people did not lock their houses; they just left them unlocked. That was the kind of neighbourhood and community it was. That has now changed, and it has changed because of a failed Liberal justice system.

I heard some of the commentary this evening about mandatory minimum penalties, etc. However, where there is no debate and no doubt is that the Liberals do not know what they are doing when it comes to Canada's justice system. Some of the statistics are absolutely staggering. Since 2015, which is when the Liberals formed government, human trafficking in Canada has increased 84%, sexual assaults are up 76% and violent crime is up 55%. In just the first nine years after forming government, total homicides are up 28% and violent firearms offences are up 117%. This is nine consecutive years of increases. Extortion is up almost 400%, auto theft is up 50% and sexual violations against children are up over 100%. Forcible confinement or kidnapping, indecent harassing and communications and trafficking in persons are up almost 100%.

When we speak of these things, they are not just statistics. Each one of those represents a victim, a victim's family and a community that feels less safe than it did before. The cumulative effect of terrible pieces of legislation is the statistics and the heartbreak that has flowed from them over this last decade.

What are some of these terrible pieces of legislation? Did this happen by accident? Was it things, as the Liberal government members like to say, outside of their control? No, these were things that were very much within the control of the government, and it took active steps that made the situation demonstrably worse.

What am I talking about? There is Bill C‑75, which fundamentally changed our bail system and introduced a so-called principle of restraint that meant judges were forced to use the least onerous provisions possible when it came to decisions around bail. It led to absolutely outrageous and ludicrous situations like the one we heard about at the justice committee. The Toronto Police Service testified that individuals who had already received bail for a previous gun crime were being let out on bail again for gun crimes. They had committed a firearms offence, received bail, were then arrested again for a serious firearms offence, received bail again and had then been arrested a third time. They were out on bail both previous times. That was not an uncommon situation. Bill C‑75 changed the rules around bail, police forces and victims groups throughout our country. Provincial attorneys general have all commented and beseeched us to address the soft-on-crime bail that the government has introduced.

The other bill that comes to mind is Bill C-5. We have heard some discussion this evening about mandatory jail times. Conservatives believe that for serious offences, there should be mandatory jail time. Some of these Liberal members who are speaking positively about tougher sentencing were, just a few years ago, defending Bill C-5, which eliminated mandatory jail time for importing, exporting and producing serious drugs, schedule I drugs. It eliminated mandatory jail time for offences like arson, drive-by shootings and serious firearms offences.

It not only eliminated the mandatory penalties but allowed for house arrest. Someone could burn down a person's house but serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home, playing video games, etc., as one can imagine. Individuals could commit serious violent offences, and people would be forced to see the perpetrators still in the community, even after having been sentenced, because they were sentenced to house arrest for the type of offence where someone should not get house arrest.

That brings us here to this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-16. Bill C-16 has another “get out of jail free” card. The Liberals cannot help themselves. There are many mandatory minimum penalties, mandatory sentences for crimes that Parliament deems to be serious. Even though there are many of them in the Criminal Code that have been upheld constitutionally, many of them that are sound, that are in our code and that are effective, the bill would create a release valve whereby a judge can decide not to apply the mandatory penalty, even for offences where the mandatory penalty has been upheld.

Some of the offences for which Bill C-16 would allow judges to ignore the mandatory prison time that this Parliament and previous Parliaments have seen fit to introduce include aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with restricted or prohibited firearms.

Canadians have had enough. They have had enough of violent crime and extortion. They have had enough with the assaults, sexual assaults and property crime. This bill would undermine our justice system by allowing judges to ignore the mandatory penalties that Parliament saw fit to put in place. Parliament put those penalties in place to protect the Canadians who are so deserving of that protection. It speaks to that witness who appeared at our justice committee and said we need to have not just a legal system but a justice system. That witness implored us to take steps to ensure that we have a justice system. Well, I can assure my colleagues that allowing for the elimination of all mandatory minimum penalties, as this legislation would, is not what this individual had in mind.

I want to recognize a couple of my colleagues, our justice shadow minister, the member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations; our public safety shadow minister, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola; and indeed our entire team on this side. For the last decade, in areas around auto theft, drugs, extortion, violent crime and crimes against children, every area where we could protect individuals in our communities, Conservative members of Parliament have been standing up and putting forward private members' bills.

One that I put forward would restore the mandatory penalties for trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine and for those who are running meth labs. These are the mandatory penalties the Liberal government, in its wisdom, decided to remove. If we were to ask whether the drug crime and drug abuse situation in Canada is better today, under the Liberal policies, than it was 10 years ago, there is not a person in this room, in this chamber, who would say things have gotten better. Unless they are willing to deny the evidence that comes to us from Stats Canada, there is not a person in this chamber who would say that the situation when it comes to violent crime, property crime, crimes against women and crimes against children is getting better.

When we look at solutions, we need to look at solutions that are going to be effective, not half measures. What this piece of legislation would do, and this is a provision I certainly cannot support, is allow judges to ignore mandatory minimum penalties that have been constitutionally upheld, that exist in the Criminal Code and that were put in there for a reason, because they recognize the seriousness of the offences that are covered.

I often hear in this place that the number one thing, the most important thing we can do, is to protect our fellow Canadians. I take that challenge very seriously. For a number of people I know in this chamber, colleagues I have talked to, improving our criminal justice system is one of the principal drivers of why they got involved in politics and why they were eventually elected as members of Parliament.

We need to ensure that we are doing our very best. Some mandatory minimums have been struck down, but to allow judges to ignore those that have been upheld in the past would be a major fault. We must stand up for the victims of crime.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise on behalf of the good people of my riding.

This is now the third, or possibly the fourth, substantive intervention I have made on Bill C-16, not to mention the numerous interventions during our study at the justice committee and our extensive discussions during clause-by-clause consideration. I want to take this opportunity to pivot in a new direction. I want to take this opportunity to explain to Canadians the truth behind the bill, not the fiction and not the utopian world that the Liberal government is trying to portray.

We have heard so often that it is like Chicken Little. The new Liberal government says that it is so serious about community safety and victim rights and that it is taking its responsibilities seriously. I have always said, during the numerous town halls I have conducted across this country, that the number one responsibility for the tired Liberal government is to keep Canadians safe. Why is it that after the 2025 election, there are three pieces of criminal legislation that would only move the needle so far but would not complete what is necessary to restore balance in our criminal justice system?

We could take, for instance, Bill C-9. Everything was progressing reasonably at committee on Bill C-9 until a backroom deal was brokered between the justice minister and the Bloc Québécois to remove a 52-year-old statutory defence in the Criminal Code and potentially criminalize preachers and faith leaders who read out passages from their religious texts. That is Bill C-9.

On Bill C-14, the government heard from all major stakeholders in this country for years. They were pleading and begging the government to give them the tools to keep violent repeat criminals off the streets. They were terrorizing communities and terrorizing victims. The government claims that it listened to those calls. It introduced Bill C-14. We talked about the principle of restraint in Bill C-14, which the government introduced under Justin Trudeau in 2019. It mandated that all accused were to be released at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. We Conservatives said that we needed to put the appropriate brakes on those who would terrorize our communities repeatedly. We needed to replace the principle of restraint with the principle of protection of the community.

Hence, the member for Oxford, my colleague, brought the jail not bail act, a reasonable piece of legislation supported by major police associations and chiefs across this country. The government rejected it, and now we are debating Bill C-16.

Again, I want to separate fact from fiction. The fiction the government is trying to demonstrate and argue is that Conservatives were always obstructionist when it came to debating Bill C-16 in committee, when we were looking at and studying the bill. The fact of the matter is that 99% of Bill C-16 was always supported by the Conservative Party of Canada. There was a poison pill and a red line, which is contained in clause 63 of the bill, that would completely upend the effectiveness of our criminal sentencing regime. It would cause mandatory minimum penalties to no longer be considered mandatory minimum penalties by allowing judges, of their own accord or through application by the accused or their defence counsel, to argue that the application of a mandatory minimum penalty would result in cruel and unusual punishment.

Where did this discussion come from? It came from that disastrous decision by our highest court just a few blocks down from this hallowed House, the Supreme Court of Canada. It ruled in Senneville that a one-year mandatory minimum penalty for the collection and the accessing of child sexual abuse material is contrary to section 12 of the charter.

These two individuals who brought their case to the Supreme Court of Canada had amassed hundreds and hundreds of still images and videos of victims as young as three years of age engaged in the most grotesque form of sexual activity with adults. Our learned justices down the road deemed that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to subject those two sadistic perverts to serve a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty. If I were the justice minister, I would say one year is not enough. Lock them up for five years, because that is where they belong, or longer. If we were talking about a similar case a few hours away from the Ottawa region in the United States, in New York state, those two sadistic perverts would be looking at double digits in prison. That is the difference between our two justice systems. What is even more appalling about that decision, and this is the problem with Bill C‑16, is that the trial judge on their own determined that notwithstanding the size of the collection and the content, as disturbing as it is, a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty was too harsh. That trial judge gave those two perverts a 45‑day weekend sentence.

What was our reaction? The collective will of Canada was shaken at its core. What is going on with our judges? What is going on with our justice system? It is no small wonder that Canadians and victims have a lack of confidence in our criminal justice system, when they see the highest court in this country ruling in the fashion that it did. We urged and pleaded with the government to come up and deal with this and use the notwithstanding clause. Section 33 of the charter has been enshrined in our charter since 1982. We would not have a charter but for section 33, but no, the government cannot do that. No, we now have to give judges that ultimate discretion to determine on their own whether a mandatory minimum penalty is appropriate in the circumstances, and there are only a few guardrails. Condition number one is that the only two offences they cannot touch are murder and treason. Condition number two is that they have to impose a jail sentence. However, in that regard, there is nothing stopping judges across this country from imposing a one-day jail sentence or a time-served jail sentence. Under Bill C‑16, that would be a lawful sentence.

I asked the justice minister repeatedly in this House and repeatedly at committee, if they wanted to bring back mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down, why can they not go further and include everything that was eliminated by Bill C‑5? Bill C‑5 is that disastrous piece of legislation that I warned David Lametti, then justice minister, would lead to adverse consequences. Now we have drug traffickers of fentanyl and other kinds of synthetic opiates, whom the judges across this country are calling the merchants of death, enjoying conditional sentences. They were once to be locked up for years, but now they can make an argument for a conditional sentence. Our justice minister shamelessly refused to bring back mandatory minimum penalties for all the drug offences and the majority of the weapons offences, including extortion with a firearm, which is raging across this country.

For all those reasons, as indicated, I would encourage this entire House to vote against Bill C‑16.

Opposition Motion—The Government's Fiscal Policies

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a recession can be defined as two consecutive quarters of flat or negative GDP growth. By that definition, Canada is in a recession. The government has downplayed the seriousness of these two consecutive flat to negative quarters of growth and painted a picture of an economy with underlying strength. However, that fails to take into account the bigger picture. Here is the bigger picture: In three of the last four quarters, aggregate GDP shrank. That comes on the heels of years of shrinking per capita GDP.

Per capita GDP is a more important measure than aggregate GDP. Here is why. Decades from now, it would be far better to live in a country of 40 million Canadians making double what they make now than to live in a country with 100 million Canadians making the same as they make now. The first country would have a smaller economy than the latter, but it would be more cohesive, more prosperous and more environmentally sustainable, with higher levels of individual income. Many corporate CEOs would prefer the latter country, because the total accessible market would be larger, but the average Canadian would be poorer for it.

Looking at the last three years, the picture of per capita GDP is grim. Canada was effectively in a per capita recession in 2023 and 2024. In 2022, per capita GDP stood at $60,735. In 2023, it shrank by $458. In 2024, it shrank, yet again, by $539. Over a two-year period, per capita GDP dropped by almost $1,000 per person, a drop of about 1.6%.

Looking at the last six years, the picture is not much better. Before the pandemic began, per capita GDP stood at $59,681 in 2019. Last year, it stood at $60,073, an increase of only $392 over six years. This is a compound annual growth rate of 0.1% per year, effectively zero. All the while, the cost of living skyrocketed.

The picture is just as bad when we look at last year. While per capita GDP edged up slightly in the last quarter, the first quarter of 2026, by 0.2% quarter over quarter, the fact is that per capita GDP shrank in Q2 and Q4 last year. As a result, per capita GDP last quarter was up only 0.2% year over year, effectively zero. In other words, per capita GDP in the first year of the new Liberal government follows the same trajectory as it had under the old Liberal government.

Part of the bigger picture is not only declining GDP, but productivity. As a Nobel Prize-winning economist once said, “Productivity isn't everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.”

The picture of productivity looks grim. When we look at Statistics Canada's annual measures, labour productivity has declined in each and every one of the last four years for which we have full-year data. Productivity dropped from $67.70 an hour worked in 2020 to $63.20 in 2024, a decline of almost 7%. Two years ago, on March 26, 2024, the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Rogers, called Canada's lagging productivity an “emergency”. Since then, productivity appears to have flatlined, if not declined. The emergency appears to have become even more dire.

When we look at Statistics Canada's quarterly measures, business sector labour productivity declined over the last year. In the first quarter of 2025, it measured on an index of 100 at 104.7. Last quarter, it stood at 104.074, a decline of 0.5% in just one year. Under the new Liberal government, the productivity emergency has gotten worse than it was under the old Liberal government.

At this point, I will remind the House that I will be splitting my time.

When the Bank of Canada rang the alarm bells on productivity, it cited low levels of business investment as one of the root causes. Business investment has plummeted over the past decade. According to a recent analysis by Steven Globerman of the Fraser Institute, business investment in plants, capital, equipment and IP, expressed as a percentage of GDP, dropped from 13.8% in 2014 to 11.1% last year, and under the new Liberal government, the decline has continued. According to Statistics Canada's release of May 29, “Business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline.” Steven Globerman has called this a “business investment emergency”. We have not only a productivity emergency but a business investment emergency. The word “emergency” is not my word. This is the word of the Bank of Canada and a reputable research organization.

The fundamentals have not gotten better in the past 12 months under the new Liberal government: not on per capita GDP, not on productivity growth and not on business capital investment. In fact, in many cases, it has gotten worse. The data I cite in this speech is taken from Statistics Canada, including tables 36-10-0706-01, 36-10-0480-01 and 36-10-0206-01, unless I have specified otherwise.

In my assessment, nothing the new Liberal government has done with the new Prime Minister in the past year fundamentally changes the trajectory of the economy, and the early data that has come in over the past four quarters confirms that assessment. Canada's per capita GDP continues to flatline, if not decline. Canada's productivity continues to flatline, if not decline. Canada's business capital investment continues to flatline, if not outright decline.

That is because the government has failed to introduce the fundamental reforms necessary to turn the economy around. It has failed to introduce wholesale tax reform to our personal and corporate income tax systems. We need tax reform of the scale and ambition that we saw in 1971 or in the 1980s under the government of Brian Mulroney. It has failed to introduce fiscal reform of the scale and ambition of former prime minister Chrétien and finance minister Martin, who, in 1995, introduced a revolutionary budget that refocused the federal government and balanced the budget in 36 months.

It has failed to introduce desperately needed competition reform to address the oligopolies and the uncompetitiveness of our economy, which are making our goods unattractive for export to global markets. Export expressed as a percentage of our GDP has plummeted, from about 43% of GDP in the year 2000 to about 33% today.

The government has also failed to introduce the regulatory reform needed. We need to reduce the regulation that is strangling business investment and growth. The government implicitly acknowledged that its regulatory approach is not working. Not only has the government not used the national interest designation under Bill C-5, but it is engaged in yet more consultations to introduce yet more legislation to change its regulatory approach.

Until early April, the government could argue that it did not have the power to enact these fundamental reforms because it did not have a majority. That excuse no longer holds. The early data coming in over the past 12 months is that the new Liberal government is on the same course as the old Liberal government on per capita GDP, productivity and business capital investment. The government has a choice: to acknowledge how bad things are, reverse course and introduce fundamental reforms in taxation, competition, and regulatory and fiscal policies, or to continue to preside over Canada's continued economic decline. If the government does not acknowledge the very real and serious fundamental challenges our economy is facing, it will not fix the problem.