Debates of March 21st, 2023

Historic Places of Canada Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to repeat what I said earlier at the beginning of my speech. We do agree with the principle of the bill because it would open the door to the first nations, which is recommendation number 79 of the Crown commission that we had to address the issues of reconciliation with the first nations. Everything started when the Right Hon. Stephen Harper tabled official apologies to first nations here in the House of Commons on June 11, 2008, which was among the most important statements made by any prime minister in history to please and to reconcile with first nations, with the authority of the government.

Yes, we do agree with the principle. We have concerns with too much power being put in the hands of cabinet ministers.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would just like him to confirm that he did say he would like Leduc No. 1 to become a Canadian historic site.

If so, would he agree that this is not the right time for that, since we are turning towards renewable energies instead? It seems to me that this historic site designation would be rather inappropriate.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have no authority to make any declarations other than to say that, yes, it would be a good idea. Since February 13, 1947, Alberta and other neighbouring provinces such as Saskatchewan have contributed substantially to the creation of wealth in this country, to say the least. Over $500 billion has been paid out in equalization to all provinces in Canada.

Need I remind my hon. colleague that we are facing major challenges today with respect to the environment? My colleague cherishes the province of Quebec, as do I. Need I also remind him that, in Quebec alone, we consumed 18 billion litres of oil last year? That is the reality. Surely he does not need me to remind him that the best-selling vehicle in Quebec is the Ford F-150. That is not what I drive. I do not like it.

The reality is that 47% of the oil we consume comes from the United States. As far as I know and since I checked just this morning, neither the state of Texas nor the state of Louisiana is currently contributing to equalization. That may have changed in the last few hours. If I am wrong, my colleague can stand up and say so.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the last time I heard my colleague speak to this subject, he exclaimed how interested he was in history, and that really came through here.

There are historic sites in my riding. There is the Rossland Miners' Hall; the Rossland Court House; the Nikkei Internment Memorial Centre in New Denver, which talks about the Japanese internment during the Second World War; and the Doukhobor Suspension Bridge, a remarkable bridge built over a hundred years ago over the Kootenay River near Castlegar. However, as we know, none of these speak to that first nations indigenous history of Canada, which is so important. The good thing about the bill before us is that it would more than encourage that. It would make it possible.

I am just wondering if the member could comment further on letting first nations and indigenous peoples take the reins.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is why we support recommendation number 79 from the Crown corporation's report on reconciliation with first nations, which was created by our former government. Yes, we do agree with that.

I am very proud to raise that in my own riding I have a historic site, the parish of Notre-Dame-de-Lorette in Wendake, which is part of my riding. I welcome any other historic sites for reconciliation and recognizing that first nations are very important in our history.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House of Commons today to discuss Bill C-23. Today and every day, I am pleased to represent the interests of the citizens of Calgary Centre.

One of the purposes of this bill is to create a Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Among other things, this bill gives the minister the authority to recognize the national historic significance or national interest of sites. It also gives the minister regulatory powers, and that is where we have a problem. The Governor in Council can make regulations respecting historic sites administered by the Agency.

This is where we might differ a little.

There are many other regulatory powers to be concerned about.

One of the main parts of this bill, which we strongly support, of course, is the call to action 79 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I will read that into the record here very quickly, if I may:

We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal organizations, and the arts community, to develop a reconciliation framework for Canadian heritage and commemoration. This would include, but not be limited to:

i. Amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its Secretariat.

That is the most important part of this one, and that is also what is in the bill that we need to support strongly. This is something that has gone on for too long in Canada, where we are not including the most important part of our history, pre-colonialization, in the decisions in the historic sites across Canada.

I do not know how that happened. I have been exploring, in my riding and across Canada, where the division happened in what was a real consensus between the colonialists who came to Canada and the first nations who were here before they came to Canada. They used to work very much hand in hand together. Somewhere in our history, that compact seemed to get broken, and we seemed to be separate entities. We are only coming past that dark part of our history in these years, as we deal with things in the House of Commons.

This call to action, of course, is part of that reconciliation. It is an important part of this bill that we need to make sure we instill in law here in Canada and in the laws going forward.

There are other things in this bill that are huge regulatory oversteps. The minister, the Minister of the Environment in this case, would have the sole authority to designate a historic site. That might sound innocuous to my colleagues. It is not so innocuous when we look at everything that has been given to this minister, and everything that has been given to this minister that he has made gross oversteps on.

I could give a few examples here. The first thing I am going to talk about is the Impact Assessment Act. The thing about the Impact Assessment Act, passed in August 2019, is that it allowed the minister, not Governor in Council, the cabinet, but this minister alone, the Minister of the Environment, to actually say, “yes, I get to approve a resource development by myself in any part of Canada, or I get to disapprove of such a resource development”, which is contrary to the Canadian Constitution.

The Canadian Constitution allows resource development in the provinces to be the purview of the provinces. It is only when it crosses provincial boundaries that the federal government or, in this case, the federal Minister of Environment might get involved.

This was an overstep, and it was recognized by the Alberta Court of Appeal in May 2022, when they overturned, by a good margin of four to one, the actual constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act.

What was lost to Canada in those almost three years, between the passage of the bill and the overturning of the bill, ruling it unconstitutional, in the Alberta Court of Appeal, were three years of project developments in Canada's natural resource industry.

That is a whole bunch of uncertainty and hundreds of billions of dollars of projects, literally hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of taxation revenue to this government to pay for things like health care and education. We will note the deficits that the government has plunged itself into as a result of not having enough revenue to pay for the programming that it is so fond of signing cheques for. This is a problem.

The Impact Assessment Act is in limbo right now, until it goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, after being overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal. People need to recognize that the Alberta Court of Appeal is five justices, all appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada. This is not an Alberta versus federal decision. These are actually people who are appointed by the federal government who have overturned a piece of federal legislation soundly.

I think anybody who is a constitutionalist around here could look at that and say, “If the constitutional authority rests with the provinces, why does the federal Minister of the Environment, by himself, get the authority to turn this over and say no, the provinces cannot do this?” It defies constitutional law, and I am going to be wondering what happens when the Supreme Court of Canada hears this. Is it going to acquiesce, or is it going to agree with everybody else in Canada who says yes? This has been a gross overstep and it needs to end.

The second thing I am going to talk about is something that happened this past summer. In June 2022, the Minister of the Environment thrust some new regulations on the migratory birds regulations. The regulations actually say that if people discover a pileated woodpecker nest anywhere near a construction site, they cannot construct anything for three years. Regulations do not come to the House. We know that. They actually go through the Hansard process.

All of a sudden that became a regulation that impeded the progress of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which had been under construction for a number of years at that time, and it is still under construction. There is a reason it is grossly over budget. The Minister of the Environment keeps putting roadblocks in the way to getting it completed. As a matter of fact, he stated he does not want to ever see this pipeline created.

This is in stark contrast to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the entity that actually builds the pipeline, who says we need to build this pipeline. We have a conflict here at cabinet. There is the Governor in Council, and now there is one minister able to make this decision about many of these regulations that are going forward. This is a problem in our governance.

It is a serious problem. We have already been exposed to what it means: $30 billion. It is $22 billion over budget for a major Crown project. That is obscene. That is something Canadian taxpayers are paying for. It is dissonance on the front bench of the Liberal government. The Liberals need to get their act together. This is something that we need to make sure we do not replicate in this legislation going forward. It is a gross overstep.

I should add one more thing about the TMX pipeline. It is over budget. The benefit of the TMX pipeline, at the end of the day, is that we are actually going to receive about $22 billion a year in national benefit as a result of the building of this pipeline. In as much as the project itself is not going to pay the proponent the amount of money that has gone into it, and we need to acknowledge that, it is a huge benefit for this country on a yearly basis going forward. It is $22 billion in revenue per year going forward, and we are way behind on getting it built.

I will also talk about budget 2019, where the Minister of the Environment could not get things one way, so he got things another way when he actually—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have a point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have been very patient in listening to the member. He is talking about everything but Bill C-23. He is talking about oil development.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There is a lot of latitude in what is permissible in speeches. The hon. member has made mention of the bill in question.

The hon. member has one minute and 15 seconds.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from my learned colleague, as always.

Budget 2019 was another example of the Minister of the Environment overstepping, as we are seeing the authority being given in this bill, when they actually unilaterally withdrew lands that were designed for ski resorts in the Rocky Mountains without even discussing with the proponents of that. What is the problem here? There are all kinds of things. This is about waterways regulation that is going to be unilateral. This is about development of lands. It is going to be unilateral approval or disapproval by one minister.

We have already heard from my speech, which was very relevant, how this negatively affects our country. We need to make sure that we address and that parts of this do not go forward as written. We need to make sure that we have the full authority of the government and that it has proper authority in order to make this happen. The minister may want all this authority, but it is not up to the House of Commons to give him alone that authority.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate him on his excellent French. Well done.

In his speech, my colleague also mentioned that he would like to relieve the minister of the responsibility and assessment of heritage sites. We know that the bill effectively addresses the TRC's call to action 79.

Can my colleague tell me who could possibly be in a better position to negotiate with all levels of government, including the municipal level, than the minister and his entire team? Can my colleague across the way answer me?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is a good question.

It is not the minister himself who is responsible for the approval of regulations, it is the Governor in Council. It is cabinet, the council of ministers, that is responsible for Canadian laws. It is not just one minister, it is all the ministers. As I said, there seems to be a conflict between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change about the Trans Mountain pipeline. This cannot go on.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to thank my colleague for speaking French. Any efforts members make to speak French in the House are really very important. Right now, the French language is in decline across the country. I think it is important that the House send a message to francophones everywhere, all across Canada, that we are concerned about French here. I commend my colleague.

The debate on Bill C-23 is a bit flat. Everyone pretty much agrees. Apart from some minor details, everyone pretty much agrees on the bill overall. It is a bit boring.

Since members are unanimous on this bill with regard to indigenous peoples and reconciliation, does my colleague not agree that there is more meaningful action to be taken? I agree with this bill. Let us pass it and move forward.

Indigenous peoples are facing challenges related to housing, homelessness and domestic violence. We know that 8% of female homicide victims in Canada are indigenous, even though indigenous women represent only 4% of the population. I think that there are a lot of issues that this government still has not addressed.

Would my colleague agree that we should start dealing with those issues as quickly as possible?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is on call to action 79, which calls for indigenous, Métis and Inuit representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its secretariat. That is one of the calls to action. The other calls to action are just as important, but in this case, we are only talking about call to action 79.

Also, we do not agree with the part of the bill that gives the Minister of the Environment the power to approve Canadian regulations.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Calgary Centre's interesting speech on national historic sites. He spent a great deal of time talking about the Trans Mountain pipeline, and it did pique my interest. It made me think that perhaps there is a category of historic sites that has been egregiously overlooked by the federal government, and that is boondoggles.

I wonder if perhaps my friend would support the pre-emptive designation of the Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that is costing Canadian taxpayers some $30 billion, as a national historic site. Perhaps he could offer his thoughts.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives are in accord with our friends in the NDP in this regard. This has been a gross overspend. We would like to see exactly where the money has been spent, but in the annals of Canadian history, to be $22 billion over-budget on a $7.5-billion project, before the government got involved, shows exactly what is wrong with the government. It thinks it can spend its way without any accountability whatsoever.

This bill we are talking about today—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address a packed House this afternoon. The government often calls its legislation “historic” and often it is not historic. However, in a very formal sense this is a historic piece of legislation insofar as it establishes rules around national historic sites.

Just as a preface, though, to the points I would like to make about this legislation, I imagine that much has been said by Conservatives about the issue of gatekeepers, about how the government's great fondness for red tape, for regulations, for gatekeepers, is making it harder for people to go about their business.

What is a gatekeeper? A gatekeeper is a regulator, an authority of some kind that prevents people from being able to go about their business or to do things that they should reasonably be able to do. Maybe the gatekeeper allows them to get through the gate eventually but imposes additional conditions or challenges that prevent that individual from going forward in a sufficiently timely way.

I think many Canadians look at various aspects of their lives and at the way government is operating, and they see way too much gatekeeping. They see way too much red tape. Modern life, because of the bureaucratization of various things, has just become excessively complicated and frustrating for people who are trying to proceed with normal life and do things that, in times past, were not over-regulated.

Conservatives are putting forward an agenda aimed at reducing red tape, at making life easier for Canadians and at allowing development to proceed without undue barriers. We made a number of genuinely historic announcements in the past week about initiatives that a Conservative government would implement, aimed at removing gatekeepers. One of those announcements was around housing. We have said that there was too much gatekeeping, too much Nimbyism, happening at the municipal level that prevents housing from getting built. When there are all sorts of little barriers that accumulate into large barriers, we see a shortage of new housing, which in turn makes housing less affordable for Canadians.

Our leader has announced strong measures that are going to require municipalities to get that gatekeeping, that red tape, out of the way. We have also announced a new measure around credentials. For over 50 years, people with trade certifications have been able to work in other parts of the country. However, people with certain professional distinctions are not able, if working virtually for instance, to easily provide that professional support across the country.

These are some instances of gatekeeping we have committed to addressing, and that, I think, need to be addressed urgently. They are a part of this whole constellation of red tape the government is piling on Canadians. This is the reality about how the government approaches things and how we approach things.

That brings us to the discussion of Bill C-23. I welcome the applause from across the way from the member for Winnipeg North. I mentioned this before, but he recently referred to me as a “mischievous little guy”. I am very proud of that, actually. I know that if the member for Winnipeg North has considered me to be mischievous, then I have had a good day. I will do my best to keep it up.

When it comes to Bill C-23, the government is saying a number of things about the designation of historic places and sites. On the face of it they seem reasonable, saying that the government should be able to designate certain places, persons and events as having historical significance for the country. It wants to have the designation of those places with plaques erected to celebrate those places, perhaps. It wants to be consulting widely, including consulting indigenous Canadians on those designations, and thus regulate the use of those places in a way that accords with their historic status.

On the face of it, at least for the second reading vote where we vote on the principle, there is some logic in saying that, yes, there can be a framework for the designation of certain sites, recognizing their historic significance. However, the concern is that we have a government that has such a tendency to use every possible pretext for imposing additional red tape, for making it harder to proceed with development project. It is a government that talks a good talk sometimes about the housing affordability challenges but in practice has done nothing to actually get housing built, a government that is fundamentally comfortable with red tape, gatekeepers and barriers preventing people from going about their normal lives. When that is the reality of what this government is all about, then people are understandably looking at Bill C-23 and asking what tools it would provide to the government for additional gatekeeping and additional restrictions on development.

When the power is vested in the hands of the minister and the minister would be able to make these designations, which would automatically impact the use of a place, and areas around it, by the way, that could create significant problems if that power is used in a way that is unreasonable. If the government is making these kinds of designations, and if the effect of making those designations is that development projects in and around the area are not able to move forward and the existing use of a particular land or particular place is no longer allowed, and if these designations are made in a way that does not reflect proper engagement or consultation with local people in the area, that would be a significant problem.

We can look at the tool that this legislation would provide to the minister to make designations and to use those designations in a variety of ways and, frankly, I would say that it is consistent with a pattern we are seeing from this government in terms of legislation. We are seeing legislation with less and less practical detail. Rather, we are seeing a lot of legislation that enables the government to do something later on.

Right beside Bill C-23, we had Bill C-22, a bill that would provide a benefit for Canadians living with disabilities. In effect, the bill would empower the government to create aspects of that benefit but not prescribe the nature of that benefit in legislation. We had Bill C-41, a bill that would empower the government to make certain exceptions in the Anti-terrorism Act, but it did not provide specificity around places where it would apply and many other aspects of how those exceptions would function. Thus, we have this pattern with the government of taking on new powers for itself through legislation, without seeing the specifics in the bill.

The kind of rhetorical approach the government brings to these debates is this: “Just trust us. We mean well. We are going to make sure that, when we are designating these places, it is going to be in accordance with what makes sense. We are reasonable people, for goodness' sake.”

However, the problem is that Canadians do not see the government as reasonable. They do not see the government as trustworthy. What we have actually seen, particularly from the Minister of Environment, and I think from the government in general, is a lack of recognition of the important role that jobs, opportunity and development play in our country, and the need to remove gatekeepers and red tape. We have not seen from the government a proper appreciation of that, and the effect, I think, has been very negative for this country.

I want to now speak on the issues of indigenous consultation that are in the bill. The legislation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am going to interrupt the hon. member for two seconds. I have to say this before 5 p.m.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Finance.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for announcing to the House that I will be delivering the late show later this evening. If, after this speech, the member for Winnipeg North and others feel they have not heard enough, they can certainly stick around.

Just to preview a little, I will be speaking at that time about the Liberal McKinsey scandal, about the fact that the government—

[Some hon. members]

Which one?

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say there are so many scandals that it is hard to keep track. We are going to need to publish a scandal almanac so we will know exactly which one at all times.

This is the scandal in which the Liberal government gave over $100 million in contracts to McKinsey, a company with a very shady record of activity around the world that includes, most concerning to many Canadians, giving advice to Purdue Pharma on how to supercharge the opioid crisis. Stick around for that, Madam Speaker. I will be speaking to that later tonight. You may not have a choice. There will be someone in the chair, regardless.

On the issue of Bill C-23, I was speaking about the government's engagement in terms of consultation with indigenous Canadians. I think, sadly but very clearly, what we have seen with the government when it comes to engaging with indigenous communities is that it has always been a one-way street. If there are indigenous organizations or communities expressing opposition to development projects, the government says it has to listen and it has to really elevate the voices on that side of the debate.

On the other hand, if we have indigenous communities, organizations or nations that are supportive of development, that want to see development projects proceed, then the government very clearly does not listen. It tries to elevate one perspective that exists within indigenous communities while ignoring another.

Let us acknowledge that, within any community of people, there is going to be a diversity of perspectives about the best way to proceed on certain issues. Development projects can be one of those contentious areas where there will be differences of opinion.

The government takes a very one-sided approach to its supposed commitment to consultation. What sticks out to me most in this regard is some time that I spent in northern territories and meeting with indigenous leaders there who talked about development restrictions the government had imposed with absolutely no consultation. It was sort of a phone call to a premier right before an announcement was made. That is how the government stopped development projects, yet it talks increasingly as if proponents of projects, those proceeding with development projects, have to get to something near unanimity.

If we realize that, in the process of talking about consulting indigenous Canadians, the government is actually interested in listening to only one side of the equation, then we realize that it is not about meaningful consultation but about the government trying to find people within indigenous communities who share its perspective and ignoring people who have a different perspective.

I fully acknowledge the diversity of views that exist in any community on development projects, but I know, certainly with people I talk to, indigenous peoples living in my riding and others across the country, there is a sizable constituency out there saying that natural resource development projects in particular contribute to jobs and opportunity growth, and that is very positive for these communities.

In the process of that consultation, it is important to ensure that the government is hearing from the full spectrum of opinions. However, what we then often see is that, when the government is creating consultation mechanisms, it preserves for itself control of who actually participates in that consultation mechanism. There was a bill that the government put forward recently creating an indigenous advisory council. In that context, the minister would be able to do the initial appointments. On the one hand, it was saying the government wants to consult with people from indigenous communities, but on the other hand, it would choose the people it is consulting.

That obviously takes away, to some extent, from the meaningfulness that could have been realized if representatives were not selected by the government that was then going to consult with them about a specific issue. I flag this because this legislation, Bill C-23, speaks about setting aside seats for first nations, Inuit and Métis representatives on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, but the process of appointment retains substantial control over those appointments in the hands of the government. It is saying it would appoint from these communities, but it is going to be the one doing those appointments. That is something important to flag in whether this would be effective.

As I said, Conservatives are supportive of the principle of having certain sites with genuine historic significance being thus designated, and of having particular frameworks around the protection of those sites once they are thus designated. We are supportive of that in principle. We will be supporting this legislation at the second reading stage, which is where we are at, and this is where we consider the general concept of a bill in principle.

The rubber is going to hit the road when we get to the committee study on this legislation and when we work through how to ensure the government is not able to use this legislation to such a general extent as to be able to put a halt to development projects anywhere and to use the designation of a place as having historic significance to block development. It is worth saying, sort of as a bit of a coda, that almost any place is probably of some significance to someone, so the broad enabling power this legislation could give government is something we need to be very careful of.

How limited is its use going to be? Is it going to be so broad as to be open to the Minister of Environment? He, let us be clear, has a particular animus for the energy sector and development in that sector and he, at one time, illegally climbed onto the roof of the premier of Alberta's home to protest that premier's policies. We see, rightly, condemnation of instances where politicians in protests are targeted in their homes, but the Minister of Environment has never addressed his record on this. We know he has a particular approach when it comes to development in this sector, so giving such significant enabling powers to the government, to the Minister of Environment in particular, raises some red flags. That is why the rubber will hit the road at the committee stage of this bill.

Finally, the approach of Conservatives is to recognize that, reasonably, there is a role for government, but we want to do everything we can to get red tape and gatekeeping out of people's lives; make people's interactions with government simpler, clearer and more predictable; reduce their taxes; and give them more control over their own lives.

Our goal as a party is to realize a fuller vision of human freedom, where people can live in strong communities and strong families, independent of government overreach and government bureaucratic control, and independent of the bureaucratization of every aspect of their lives. That is the vision our leader has articulated about removing gatekeepers, defending freedom and recognizing that strong individuals, families and communities are the fundamentals of life far more important than government.

While we recognize some value in the principle of this legislation, I can assure members that we will continue to be vigilant to ensure the government, to the extent we are able, is blocked from overreaches into people's lives, that we fully realize that vision of human freedom. I suspect it will take a new government, a new Conservative government, to bring us to that point, but for the time being, we will use the opportunities we have in opposition to do precisely that.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, or at least the part about Bill C-23.

After a long preamble about our government's sound management of housing and the labour shortage, he eventually got around to speaking to Bill C‑23. He focused on the designation of places.

I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees that Bill C‑23 will facilitate access to information and improve its quality and that the register will help us make the right decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with some aspects of the member's characterization of my speech. Part of the obligation of members of Parliament is to provide a broader and deeper analysis of the principles involved, and I think I have done that. Maybe the member can take some time this evening to watch the speech again on CPAC. He might enjoy that. Perhaps it will be edifying to him and those he watches it with. I know the member for Winnipeg North does this on a regular basis.

[An hon. member]

All the time. I have your speeches on repeat.