Debates of June 13th, 2025

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I will finish my answer to the other question.

The dedicated export pipeline to Asia was approved by the previous Conservative government. The court said there were insufficiencies in indigenous consultation, just as it said about the Liberals on TMX, and the then prime minister should have redone the indigenous consultation with the 31 first nations communities that wanted northern gateway and approved it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

We are dealing with one of the most significant, if not the most significant, moves toward centralization, encroachment and “franchising” of the provinces and Quebec for the benefit of the Prime Minister's business plan. It all began when Donald Trump was elected. Fear became a reality and a political tool that was used to tell people to be afraid and to rally behind the former head of the Bank of England. It worked, and we have an obligation to listen to popular opinion. We understood that people were afraid of Donald Trump. In Quebec, however, they quickly stopped talking about Mr. Trump. Rightly or wrongly, people started talking about the Conservative leader. This is not a value judgment, but the message we received was that people did not want the Conservatives and were afraid of the Conservative leader, because the party and its leader were associated with ideas similar to Mr. Trump's. Once people realized the Conservative leader was unlikely to win the election, it was a bit late, but many people came back to us. We still have a clear influence in this Parliament today, which will become obvious in the House over time.

To steal votes from the Conservatives, the Liberal leader stole their platform. The Liberals are talking about tax cuts, “drill, baby, drill”, an impossible budget, and a financial framework that makes no sense. Even today, Canadians got $4 billion in handouts without a penny going to Quebeckers. The Liberals have proposed $6 billion or more in tax cuts. Nobody knows anymore how many billions of dollars are involved in the cancelled countertariffs, because the countertariff dance is a bit hard to follow. The government is talking about $9 billion that will go not toward strengthening our military, but toward absorbing the F‑35 cost overruns. All this is on top of the promise to increase spending, lower revenues and rebalance the budget with 2% growth. Many people have tried this before, but none have succeeded. The math simply does not add up.

Regardless, the government is going full speed ahead on projects of pharaonic proportions. A key component is oil and gas, including pipelines. That is not the only component, but it is part of the plan. It is clear that, in the short term, for most, if not all, of the pipelines, the private sector will not act alone. The government will have to pay. The public will have to pay. Apparently, according to the Minister of Industry, the government is disinclined to pay for hydroelectricity. The Liberals will be able to make up their own minds, because they just recruited the Prime Minister's pal, who was in charge of Hydro-Québec. They brought him in, they are going to have a little get-together so he can help them sort out everyone's money issues, and he will be privy to all their secrets. That alone is a question worth asking.

However, it will be years before all those projects generate revenue for the government, and with all the spending I have already mentioned, which will make Justin Trudeau seem like a frugal mom, the deficits will be astronomical. The government is going to act as though climate change does not exist. The people and families of Quebec and Canada are going to pay thousands of dollars a year for repairs and adaptations for damage caused by climate change, which everyone is suddenly pretending no longer exists. They are going to be saddled with projects that will encroach on laws, powers and regulations enacted over the years in relation to the environment, indigenous rights, biodiversity, language and taxation. The government will make that happen by giving a minister who is not very far from the Prime Minister, and who will probably be at the dinner with Mr. Sabia, totally discretionary powers, something countries that are not particularly democratic can only dream of.

However, the government's hasty actions quickly turn into improvisation. Improvising with government affairs is a risky business. It is quite literally reckless, regardless of one's political affiliation.

That is not what Quebeckers voted for. I can already hear someone saying that there are 44 Liberal members from Quebec. It is true that there are 44 Liberal members from Quebec. There are also 11 Conservative members from Quebec, and God only knows who would consider joining the other party. The Liberals did not present a platform; they barely presented a business plan. Quebeckers voted Liberal out of fear, rightly or wrongly, of the Trump-Poilievre duo. Now the Liberals are adopting the Conservatives' ideas in an attempt to align themselves with the Conservatives and carry out the Conservative agenda. No one can convince me that this is what Quebeckers voted for. This is just what Quebeckers voted against.

The Liberals are kicking off their term by imposing time allocation on a Parliament where they were elected by the will of the people to serve as a minority government. I do not think that the government is going to get away with this so easily. I would like to believe that the Conservatives will refuse to sell their souls to the Liberals, because this is not what Quebeckers voted for. They voted for a Parliament that works for them and respects them. The size, breadth, and unprecedented scope of this bill demand comprehensive analysis. This bill needs to be exhaustively studied in committee, not skimmed on the fly one fine, sunny June 12.

If the government had nothing to hide, it would let us send this bill to committee and preferably split it up, in keeping with its true nature. All of us have been elected to work in a transparent manner. We have all been elected to carry out a mandate given to us by the people. The MPs who are not members of the government have been elected to provide careful oversight and, at the very least, to ensure, before they throw their support behind the government, that bills have been carefully scrutinized and found to serve the common good.

Today, nothing could be less certain. I therefore urge everyone to forget about making deals, carry out the responsibility entrusted to them by the citizens of Quebec and Canada and refer this bill to committee for study by members of the House. We are willing to contribute to that study. That is how the House is meant to function.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think that the leader of the Bloc Québécois is misreading the situation. There was an election campaign, and we debated at length. We even wrote on the first page of our platform that we would pass such a bill before Canada Day. That is what we are doing.

Quebec and Quebeckers are facing an economic crisis of unexpected magnitude. The signs are there. The province's credit rating has been downgraded. Aluminum workers are certainly experiencing a crisis. Our supply chains and ports are struggling. Quebeckers have asked us to take action, and that is what we are doing.

Does the leader of the Bloc Québécois not share—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share a lot of things, but that is not one of them.

We missed out on a debate. Where was their boss? We usually have our first debate on TVA in front of a large audience. Where was their boss? I could have one tomorrow morning. I am always up for a debate. We could ask Mr. Poilievre, who is not in the House. I have invited him many times.

The Liberals promised to table the bill by July 1, and they have done so. However, did they also promise to blatantly disregard the rules of democracy and try to ram regulations down our throats that they had never mentioned to anyone? There are details of this legislation that suspend fundamental laws preserving indigenous rights, the environment and biodiversity and that suspend the rule of law in Canada at the will of the Prime Minister and his best friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the leader of the Bloc Québécois on his election. As I have said many times in interviews and here in the House, I want to congratulate him on his election campaign because he ran a good campaign. That is what I think.

Now, I would like to get him to talk about this bill, which includes something we have supported for years, namely, a single environmental assessment per project. The leader of the Bloc Québécois will recall that 13 months ago, on May 12, 2024, we introduced a bill to that effect. We debated it, we had a vote, and the Bloc Québécois supported the principle of our bill. Rather than having one environmental assessment, followed by another that might contradict the first and require more time, we wanted a single environmental assessment, with the federal and provincial governments working together. That is the principle we had put forward, and the Bloc Québécois supported that principle.

Does the current bill include that same principle?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, instead of environmental assessments, the current bill could give the minister the ability to arbitrarily circumvent them in the name of the “one economy” myth. The Liberals are free to hope that Canada is one economy, but they cannot say that it is, because every province is different. I am sure my colleague will agree with me on that.

Every province and region has different economic bases. They export to different markets and have developed different economic tools. That is why we denounce this terrible move toward centralization, especially since it gives a single minister the authority to arbitrarily suspend laws that have been in effect for a long time. Quebec must never give up the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement or dictate the duration of its work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for his excellent speech. It is always a pleasure to hear him speak.

I would like to hear more of his thoughts on the Liberals' line about how they have 44 Quebec MPs in the House. We know that the Prime Minister cavalierly disregards democracy and the role of parliamentarians. There may be 44 MPs, but there could just as well be 72 or 128 or 343, and they would all be shut down by the gag order. What message does that send?

What message does it send when the government systematically ignores the unanimous voice of 125 Quebec MNAs?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, someone suggested earlier that folks are missing Prime Minister Trudeau. I am not so sure, but his government and this one have a few things in common because they are the same. That is why the Prime Minister always talks about the “new government”. At the end of the day, the only new thing about this government is the Prime Minister.

As for those 44 MPs, supposedly Quebec loves them and loves what they do and cannot stop talking about how amazing they are. However, the 125 members of Quebec's National Assembly unanimously said that there is no such thing as one Canadian economy because we have our own institutions, and our institutions are valid.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

This is a critical time, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I do not think people realize the extent of it. The public does not understand, and neither do the members of this House.

We have only been sitting in this House for three weeks and the government is already imposing a gag order, even though it is a minority government. The bill under closure has not been debated. There has not been a single hour, a single minute, or even a single second of debate, and they are already imposing a gag order on us.

Normally, when a gag order is imposed, it is because Parliament is deadlocked or because there is a real emergency, a fire is raging and everyone agrees that it should be passed without a hitch. However, that is not the case here. What is worse, they want to impose a gag order on something that will be profoundly transformative. Passing this bill will radically change how the federal government functions and how major projects are approved once presented to us. That, too, is cause for concern.

Even more concerning is that the wording of the motion states, among other things, that parliamentary committees will have only a day and a half to examine the bill, and that witnesses will be heard at a time when it is no longer even possible to propose amendments. That is crazy, but that is what is being presented today and what a majority of members in the House seem prepared accept, on both the Liberal and Conservative sides. I am rather surprised by all of this, because it is a denial of democracy. The government is trying to ram through a bill that was never publicly debated. Almost no member of civil society has had the opportunity to carefully analyze or comment on the bill, including the media and experts in the various fields affected by the bill's provisions. The fact that the government is already imposing a gag order on us is really very serious and problematic. Keep in mind that this is a major bill, not some harmless little piece of legislation.

What is the aim of this two-part bill? We do not have a real problem with part 1, despite the somewhat provocative way in which the Liberals presented it. This part, which deals with the free trade of goods and services and labour mobility, is ultimately not a bad thing, since it involves the federal government withdrawing from certain jurisdictions. The federal government is recognizing provincial jurisdictions and telling us that it will not get in the provinces' way. The government is removing barriers. In fact, it is removing its own barriers. I personally do not want any federally imposed barriers, and I do not think many of my Bloc Québécois colleagues do either, so that is a good thing and we support it.

Part 2 is another story. That part requires a very thorough analysis, and that is why we really want to split this bill. Part 2 of the bill would essentially make it so that certain laws do not apply to major projects that are deemed to be in the national interest. What are those so-called national interest projects, and how will they be chosen? Well, we just do not know. The bill provides some indications, but it does not specify exactly what those projects are, nor does it define the criteria. The criteria in the bill are suggested criteria. They are recommendations. The minister can choose whether to consider them or not. It is up to him. That is absolutely crazy, but that is how it is.

In theory, the criteria are to strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security; provide economic benefits to Canada; have a high likelihood of successful execution; advance the interests of indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. However, these are non-binding objectives. The minister can basically do what he wants in terms of the application of these criteria. The decision is at his discretion. The minister makes a list, and that is that. He decides which projects will be exempt from the law.

How do projects get on that list? It is done by order in council. That means there is no public debate. No one can question whether it is a good or bad project. The minister can wake up one morning and decide that it is a good project. He does not need to ask anyone's permission. Actually, that is not quite true. He has to consult the first nations and the provinces, but all he has to do is consult them and that is it. He does not have to do anything else. He just has to consult them and that is the end of it. What does it mean to consult? It does not mean that everyone agrees. It does not mean that Quebec agrees to be steamrolled. It does not mean that the first nations agree to have projects imposed on them. It just means that someone talked to them about it first. That is all that it means. On the basis of consultation alone, the minister can decide that he has enough information to proceed with an order in council and make the project in question a priority. He can circumvent everything and disregard laws that we thought were unassailable.

What happens when a project is on a list? The project is automatically approved. It had not even been analyzed when the Governor in Council issued an order for the project to be added to the list and approved. It stops there, no public debate, no questions. Before it is even debated and reviewed, before any environmental assessments are done, without any regard for processes, the project is automatically approved. That is real progress.

What legislation would not apply to these major projects? There is a whole list in schedule 2 of the bill. There are 33 statutes, including the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Species at Risk Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, and the Impact Assessment Act. As if that were not enough, there are also regulations that are not automatically applicable to these major projects. We are talking about the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the marine mammal regulations, the port authorities operations regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations and the migratory birds regulations, 2022. That is scary enough. We might say that, with a list like that, anything goes.

However, that is not all. Clause 21 of Bill C‑5 states that the Governor in Council may, by order, add any other act or regulation to this schedule, without any public debate, without going through Parliament and without consulting anyone.

What could those acts be? What acts could be affected? It could be the Official Languages Act, and then bilingualism and francophone rights would no longer be respected. The government could add the Canada Labour Code and not comply with it for these major projects. It could no longer comply with the Income Tax Act and people would not have to pay taxes. It could no longer comply with the Criminal Code. That is not written in the bill and it does not say that the government will do that. However, if it chooses to do so, the way this bill is currently written would allow it. That is completely scandalous and unacceptable. I cannot believe that my peers in the Conservative Party of Canada, or anyone else, would support this and say that there is no problem, that they would hand the government a blank cheque and that the government could do whatever it wants for all eternity.

Worse still, it shows that this government is taking cues from the government south of the border. What we were critical of and what everyone wanted to be protected from was a government that acts arbitrarily, imposes its agenda without consulting or listening to anyone, and governs by decree. What we have before us is a government that wants to govern by decree. How are projects chosen? It is by decree. How are the criteria set? They are being set by the minister alone. How can existing laws not apply to major projects? They are excluded by decree. This government wants to govern by decree, and now it wants to impose a gag order. It is unacceptable for a Parliament to pass such legislation. This bill absolutely needs to be thoroughly studied in committee by experts. This bill undermines our democratic institutions and public institutions. Worse still, it would put this government in untenable situations where it could easily be influenced by lobbyists with their own particular agendas. The minister would be very susceptible to this, because there would be no one to block him and no checks and balances.

I could go on at length, but, unfortunately, I am out of time. In conclusion, I would say that shutting down debate on the motion before us is just one reason for that, so I would like to move an amendment that could make it a little better.

The amendment reads as follows. I move:

That the motion be amended:

(a) in paragraph (b)(ii), by replacing the words “at 3:30 p.m.” with the words “at 10 a.m.”;

(b) in subparagraph (b)(ii)(B), by replacing the words “until 5:30 p.m.” with the words “until 11:59 p.m.”;

(c) by adding the following after subparagraph (b)(ii)(C): “(D) the following people be summoned to appear as witnesses for a minimum of one hour each at one of the two committee meetings:

(i) the Prime Minister,

(ii) the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy,

(iii) the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade,

(iv) the Minister of Environment and Climate Change,

(v) the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations;”.

All those people could come explain the bill to the committee. We would also—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I believe once again that the Bloc Québécois does not fully grasp the current situation.

We are facing an economic crisis, caused in part by our neighbours to the south, and the symptoms are obvious: Quebec's credit rating has been downgraded, and the aluminum sector is anxious.

What has happened in the past when Quebeckers have faced crises? We rolled up our sleeves and did great things, undertook great projects together. If we had listened to the Bloc Québécois at the time, there would be no aluminum industry. There would be no Montreal metro, nor would Expo 67 have come to be. Robert Bourassa would not have been able to carry out his project in James Bay.

There is a similar crisis today. There are similar challenges—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Would it be possible to grant the government the same amount of time for questions as all the opposition parties get? I get the impression that the government is not following the rules.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Of course.

The hon. minister has a few more seconds.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois does not like learning lessons from history.

Would the member not agree that, when faced with challenges, Quebeckers are capable of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find sad is that, when faced with these challenges, what Quebeckers and Canadians voted for in the last election was a minority government. When I went door to door, a lot of voters said they hoped that people would co-operate and work together.

However, what we are seeing is a government that is imposing time allocation on a bill that would fundamentally change the way the government operates. Should we accept this without asking any questions and without anyone being able to look at what is in this bill? To me, that is deeply concerning.

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

Mr. Speaker, by the way, congratulations on your first full day in the Speaker's chair.

I congratulate the member on his very interesting speech. He addressed the issue of first nations. When it comes to energy or natural resource projects, it goes without saying that the first nations must be consulted, of course, but even more so, they should be partners in the projects, partners in the prosperity. That idea has been part of our campaign platform for many years.

What does the member think about including first nations as partners in prosperity through energy and natural resources projects?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the first nations should be consulted beforehand. I think it is up to them to decide what they do or do not want to get involved with.

Second, there are serious issues with this bill. I find it worrisome to see my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk take all these very important elements so lightly. I hope he will come to his senses before it comes time to vote.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague put it very well: Essentially, the bill requires the entire country to blindly trust a minister who will not be bound in any way by environmental assessments.

I recall the fairly recent Bay du Nord project, which received unfavourable environmental assessments. In the end, even the environment minister at the time, who is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, had to swallow his pride, listen to the industry and grovel before it. Ultimately, this project went ahead, despite the unfavourable assessments.

What does history tell us about how much we can trust this government when it comes to the environment? Does it not show that this bill is, in fact, a danger to the public?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, history has shown that, whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in power, they are constantly beholden to oil companies and always work in their interests. It is pretty clear that this bill was most likely drafted in close consultation with oil companies.

The other issue with this bill is that it goes far beyond environmental rules. It encroaches on provincial sovereignty and first nations' rights. It could even suspend all existing laws in Canada that are not constitutional laws. That is what is in this bill.

Significant amendments are absolutely essential. Under the circumstances, it cannot be passed under a gag order.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the fantastic member for Northumberland—Clarke.

Before I talk about the actual merits of Bill C-5, I want to set the stage a little. The so-called one Canadian economy act is being brought in allegedly in response to the threats from the south, from President Trump, but it is disingenuous, at best, to say that that is what this is about. The crisis that is facing Canada is really a result of the last 10 years of a pretty incompetent Liberal government, and I will just talk about a few facts to back that up.

Let us talk about housing. Housing prices have become completely unaffordable. Most young people do not believe that they will ever own a home in their entire lifetime. In Ontario, my home province, we now have one million people regularly using food banks. This is a shocking increase from what it was a mere 10 years ago, when the number of people using a food bank in Ontario was about 350,000. Over the course of a decade of Liberal government management of the economy, the number of Canadians who are using a food bank has more than tripled. It gets worse because, again, 10 years ago, the number of people who were full-time employed and using a food bank was about 8% of those using the food bank. It is now 25%, so that has also tripled.

This is the backdrop of what has been going on in Canada after 10 years of the Liberal government. The Liberals like to say that they are a new government, but in fact they are not. The government is almost entirely composed of the ministers who were responsible for the files that created the challenges that exist today.

Now, the so-called one Canadian economy act talks about labour mobility, which is a critical issue. For a tradesperson in Canada, it is very difficult to go from New Brunswick or Newfoundland over to Alberta, where there may be work, or from Alberta over to New Brunswick or Newfoundland, if they are looking for work. This is because there is no standard set of safety standards across the country. Each province has its own safety standards, whether it is about working in confined spaces or working from heights. People may have certifications in their home province, but those certifications would not be recognized when they move to another province for work. That is a problem, because it could take them three, four or five days to meet these allegedly different standards within their trade, and therefore people would be going three, four or five days without pay. I know. I have travelled across the country. I have met with skilled tradespeople in the unionized sector, and this is a huge problem. It is a big disincentive for people to actually travel across the country to go where the work is.

When the Liberals talk about how we need to remove these interprovincial trade barriers, labour mobility is a huge part, and there is a simple solution. It is one that we actually proposed in the election. We said we would create a blue seal standard for these things across the country, so if people are certified to work from heights in Ontario, if they met that standard, they could go from Ontario to B.C., because they would have met this new standard.

The problem that we have is that the government did not do that in this alleged labour mobility bill. The Liberals are not taking the real step. It is just another example of a lot of talk. It sounds good that they are going to improve labour mobility, but when we actually look at the bill, it would not actually do anything it says. It promises to improve labour mobility by recognizing provincial occupation certificates federally. That would not help the plumber who is trying to go from Ontario to B.C. for work. That actually would not do anything for them. It is the same thing with any other skilled trades. The Liberals had a real opportunity to do something to make the lives of working Canadians better and to make labour mobility easier, but of course they declined to do that, so this is a major miss.

When the Liberals are talking about how we need to get the economy moving, they should have taken real steps to improve labour mobility, especially in the skilled trades. Those of us who spend time meeting with our tradespeople, the people who build and maintain this country, know that there is often a boom-bust cycle to that. The projects may be booming in Ontario when they are not necessarily booming in Manitoba, so the ability to move from one jurisdiction to another in order to be gainfully employed is critical.

This is not a new issue. This has been talked about for almost a decade, but the Liberals have lacked the political will to actually create a standard that would be recognized by all provinces, a new federal standard in the skilled trades for those types of safety things, as I said, like working in confined spaces or working from heights. If the Liberals did that, they would open up labour mobility for our tradespeople at a time when they absolutely need it.

Projects that the Liberals say are going to be spurred along by this piece of legislation have been delayed for a long time; they are not moving forward. Many people in the skilled trades are finding it hard to be employed, but they could be employed if they could move from one province to another. This is an absolute failure by the government, which says it is a new government that will take on new challenges. The Liberals have absolutely walked away from the challenge of labour mobility with this piece of legislation.

While we talk about the challenges with people in skilled trades, I would be remiss, as the shadow minister for labour, if I did not talk about the Liberal plan for modular housing. The Liberals now tout this as the big solution to housing, which, of course, it will not be, but one thing it would do for sure is take away jobs from our skilled tradespeople, especially our unionized tradespeople involved in housing construction: the plumbers, the carpenters, the pipefitters. They are the ones doing all the work to build houses, and now the Liberals want to take that away and have modular houses built in factories where there will be no skilled trades. This is going to have a disastrous effect. We are not going to have Red Seal carpenters working in a factory to build modular homes. The members across are laughing, which displays their ignorance on how the trades work and the general disregard the Liberal government has had for trades, especially for unionized tradespeople.

This brings me to another point, which is that for the first time in Canadian history, there is no minister of labour. This is a pretty shocking discovery. The Liberals are going to say they have a guy; he is the Secretary of State for Labour. However, it is like the person who sits at the kids' table at the wedding. They are kind of there, but they do not really matter that much. They are not at the big person table, which is the cabinet table.

What have unions said when they describe this? Joseph Mancinelli from LiUNA said, “if the Canadian government wants respect from labourers, perhaps let's start with a Minister of Labour”. He went on to call it a “slap in the face”. This is what it has been described as. Even CUPE said that it is “not just disappointing, but frankly insulting.” When we look at the lack of labour mobility in the bill, which is allegedly supposed to help; when we look at the Liberals pushing for modular housing, which will push out the trades; and when we look at the fact that there is no minister of labour, people in the labour movement know exactly where the Liberal government stands. Do not even get me started on taking away the right to strike through section 107 referrals. This is a government that has absolutely no respect for labourers and unions in this country, and the labour unions know it.

Now, let us talk about the one aspect of the bill that I find particularly troubling, which is the ministerial designation. The minister would get to pick the proponents of these projects. How could we ever think this is going to go well from a government that was responsible for the green slush fund and GC Strategies? Now the Liberals would get to pick the people who get these billion-dollar projects.

Imagine the corruption and graft that will go on with a government that has been awash in nothing but corruption and graft for the last 10 years. This will be corruption unlike we have ever seen. The minister is going to say he is going to pick one company to do a project. Can members imagine the corruption that is going to go on? If GC Strategies was able to turn $60,000 into $64 million, what is going to happen with a $1-billion project that a minister gets to pick? The green slush fund was Liberal insiders giving money to other Liberals while the minister stood there and did nothing. Actually, no, that is not true; the minister got promoted. The ministers responsible for GC Strategies got promoted too.

What did the Liberals learn? It is that turning a blind eye to corruption gets rewarded, and now they say this is how they are going to create the one Canadian economy. Yes, it is going to be one Canadian economy for Liberal insiders who get to line each other's pockets with these big fat contracts, just as they did with the green slush fund and just as they did with GC Strategies.

The bill would unleash a tidal wave of corruption and graft that the Liberals will hand out to all of their friends. It is not what Canadians need. It is not what unionized workers need. It is not what tradespeople need. It is another big, fat failure by a corrupt Liberal government, not a new Liberal government but the same old Liberal government that is going to reward its same old buddies with these big fat contracts.

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

Mr. Speaker, wow, that was a mouthful coming from the member opposite. Talk about misinformation or just completely misguided.

If he wants to talk about housing, let us talk about the six houses that Pierre Poilievre built when he was the minister of housing. We still do not know where they are located. That is not to mention the suggestion that there are no skills involved in developing modular homes.

Let us get to the bill itself. We had a very clear mandate on April the 28 to build one Canadian economy, and it is as straightforward as that. This bill would make a difference. It is part of the discussions that have taken place with all the first ministers in anticipation of our tabling the bill. Will the member get on side with reality and what Canadians told parliamentarians?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spent a good deal of my speech talking about the opportunity for continued ministerial corruption from a corrupt Liberal government, and the parliamentary secretary's push-back is that Pierre Poilievre built six houses.

That tells us exactly what is going to go on with the corruption, with respect to this particular piece of legislation. His push-back on the skilled trades was that there would not be any skills involved in building a modular house. Of course there would; factory workers have lots of skills. I talked about skilled trades.

Unionized skilled tradespeople will not be building modular houses, which is also why we do not have a minister of labour; we have the kids' table Secretary of State for Labour, which every union in the country has criticized. They know exactly what direction the government is going in. It is going to eliminate unionized skilled trades with this kind of budgeting and with this kind of bill.