Debates of June 16th, 2025

Consideration of Government Business No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre knows her behaviour is inappropriate. It is a constant, direct heckle to the member, and I would ask that, if she cannot contain herself, she be asked to leave the chamber.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will encourage all members to withhold their comments when they do not have the floor and allow the parliamentary secretary to finish his comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is crucial. We are in an economic crisis. This legislation would move forward with the ability to move on interprovincial trade and the reduction of barriers and allow major national projects to get built.

The government is absolutely committed to advancing indigenous participation in major national projects. Projects would not be listed if there were not adequate consultation or if section 35 rights and UNDRIP were not recognized. Members in the House can argue otherwise, but the government has been very clear and committed.

This legislation is crucial. Let us get it passed because it matters for Canada.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister talk quite a bit about trade. One group of products being hit hard right now by tariffs is Canadian seafood.

Lobster, of course, is a very important seafood export of the member's province and of mine as well. Since March, there has been a 25% tariff placed on Canadian seafood by China. It seems as though seafood and the seafood industry are just collateral damage in a trade war the member's government started with China.

Given his high-profile position and how connected he is to the PMO, could the member explain to the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada if he is doing anything about it?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we know the value of the Canadian seafood industry, particularly in our home region of Atlantic Canada. The Prime Minister has been very clear. He had a very constructive conversation with the premier of China. We are going to be regularizing communication with the Chinese government.

However, the member needs to also understand the geopolitics involved because the seafood industry also benefits from exports into the United States. This is an important conversation that the Prime Minister is having at the G7 summit right now. At the end of the day, this is a difficult situation because the U.S. government is also very hawkish on China. Any pathway we move forward on has to be measured against finding a balance with the Canada-U.S. relationship, in a continental sense, while also engaging constructively with the Chinese government to make sure we can continue to move our seafood products and our agriculture products to the world. Our government is committed to making that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for his speech and his sensitivity on issues affecting indigenous peoples.

He repeated the phrase we have often heard from the Liberals over the past few days, about creating one Canadian economy out of 13. This shows how little consideration was given to the indigenous economy, even in the thought process that led to this election commitment to encroach on provincial jurisdictions. Otherwise, they might have said 14 economies, or maybe even 70. Every nation has its own economic values. Every nation's economic values are different. When I hear them talking about 13 economies, I assume they are referring to the economies of the 10 provinces and three territories.

Has my colleague considered that indigenous people can have their own economy, separate from those of the provinces?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr Speaker, this is a new government, but for the members who have been involved over the last 10 years, and the hon. member will hopefully agree, reconciliation was an absolute cornerstone of former prime minister Justin Trudeau's tenure here in his service to Canada.

We have consistently invested in and put in equity for indigenous partners to be involved in major projects. The government has actually increased the equity loan program for indigenous communities to take advantage of and be involved in major projects to help move communities forward and to help bring some communities out of poverty. There are tremendous opportunities out there. We respect the fact that we want indigenous partners across the country to be involved in major nation-building projects. It is the right thing to do. It makes sense economically, and it makes sense for reconciliation.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate in Canada to be blessed with many great financial institutions, and within these institutions are economic departments with great economists leading them.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the position of our Canadian banks with respect to this particular bill.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I chair the Prime Minister's economic growth caucus. We had the opportunity to welcome chief economists from the major national banks who were supportive of the type of legislation that allows big projects to get built.

I do not want to speak for the banks in this country, but I would say that this is the type of legislation that is about building economic resilience in the country. It is about making sure big projects happen. It is crucial to make sure that we can drive productivity in this country, and I would encourage all members to support this bill as soon as possible because it matters at a crucial time for the country.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to rise in this House today on behalf of the people of Mississauga East—Cooksville. It is a pivotal time for our country and for Canadian families alike.

I would like to congratulate all the dads out there for a belated happy Father's Day. They do a great job.

Canadians sent us here with a clear message to make life more affordable, to make our economy work for everyone and to bring this country together stronger, fairer and more united than ever before. That is exactly what our government is doing. When I speak with a young couple in Mississauga trying to buy their first home, a small grocer who wants to expand their business across provincial lines or a retired couple feeling the pressure at the checkout line, one thing is clear: Canadians are looking for action and not slogans. They are getting that action through bold, focused leadership under our Prime Minister and our new government.

This is not just about responding to challenges; it is about seizing the opportunity. Today, all eyes are on Kananaskis, Alberta, as Canada hosts the G7 summit. This is a moment to showcase what makes Canada strong: our resilient middle class, our clean and conventional energy leadership, and our commitment to building a modern, unified economy where no one is left behind. We will stand on the global stage and show the world that Canada is not just keeping up; we are leading.

Here at home, we are moving quickly to deliver real relief for Canadians. Bill C-4, now before this House, delivers on the 2025 campaign promise to cut taxes for the middle class, reducing the lowest tax bracket. That would mean more money in the pockets of 22 million Canadians, up to $840 a year for a two-income family. This relief would start on July 1, so the time to act is now. Families cannot afford delay; they need this support and they need it now.

We are not stopping there. We are tackling the housing crisis with a targeted GST exemption for first-time homebuyers on homes up to $1 million. This would be especially impactful for families in cities like mine of Mississauga. We are helping young Canadians enter the housing market while investing in housing supply to make sure the next generation has the same shot at success.

This past weekend, I had the honour to attend a Luso charities event, which raises vital funds for individuals living with cognitive disabilities. What stood out to me was not just the generosity in that room, which was tremendous, but that there were developers, union leaders and construction workers. People from every corner of the building sector came together for a common purpose.

Do members know what they told me? They said they are optimistic. They believe in the direction our country is going, the way we are headed. They know that by working together with government, community, industry and labour, we can build the homes Canadians need while creating good jobs and delivering inclusive, progressive growth. This is what nation building looks like, and it starts with partnership. This is what it means to build fairness.

Now let me speak about trade, infrastructure and opportunity, because these issues are deeply connected. It was a busy weekend this weekend. I also had the pleasure of attending North America's biggest halal food festival, right in the heart of Mississauga. Fifty thousand people came out, including families, entrepreneurs and business leaders from across our country. Amir Shamsi, the founder, took me around to speak with many of the businesses. Built from the ground up, many of them are newcomer-run, women-led or youth-run. They told me they were ready to grow. They want to move their products across provincial borders and access new markets abroad, but right now they are hitting red tape, different standards, fragmented rules and unnecessary costs. We need to fix that.

That is why Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, is so important. It is vital that we do this. The bill tears down those barriers, creating one unified marketplace across Canada. It helps small and medium-sized businesses, like those at the halal food festival, expand faster, hire more workers and compete globally.

Trade policy is not enough. Nation-building infrastructure is the backbone that supports our economic growth. That is why Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, would help unleash strategic trade and energy corridors, projects that connect our natural resources to markets, our businesses to ports, and our goods to global demand.

We need to modernize Canada's ports, from Halifax to Vancouver, to handle large volumes and higher efficiency. We need to expand rail and highway infrastructure to reduce congestion and speed up delivery. We need to build clean energy corridors that will move electricity across provinces, so that Canadian power can fuel our homes, our factories and our vehicles from coast to coast to coast. This is how we unlock the full potential of the Canadian economy, by investing in the hard infrastructure that makes trade real. This is inclusive, bottom-up trade, where the benefits start with the people on the ground, in places like the great place of Mississauga, and ripple outward across our country.

At our borders, where economic and national security meet, we are acting with Bill C-2. The bill would modernize trade routes, strengthen enforcement and stop the illegal flow of guns and drugs, while speeding up the legal flow of goods. That is good for safety and good for business, and it is essential for a modern economy.

These are just bills, but they are all part of a unified vision, a 2025 Liberal vision, a Liberal plan that Canadians voted for: tax relief for working families; housing access for the next generation; strategic infrastructure to support trade, innovation and energy; a clean economy that grows with people-powered innovation; and a strong Canada united from coast to coast to coast.

It is a plan to build on economic expertise, empowered by the values that Canadians hold dear. We have a Prime Minister with real-world experience in global finance and public service, who held a job as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, as well as the Governor of the Bank of England. This person comes with this experience and brings us all together to a new government, a cabinet team that reflects Canada and delivers for Canadians.

Members have probably heard the announcement that Michael Sabia will be the incoming Clerk of the Privy Council. We have someone, again, who understands both business and public policy and brings those together. He has done it in Quebec. He has done it across our country. That will help. It will help as we build our team Canada.

This Canadian team, working together with all of us, and I say all of us because I speak to all members in the House, our provinces, our territories, our indigenous partners, the private sector, labour and 41 million Canadians, will unlock Canada's full economic potential. That is what real partnership and real leadership look like. What unites all of this is simple. We are focused on people: not partisanship, not posturing, but people.

This is how we restore faith in government, by showing that it can work and that it can deliver for our people. As we show the world in Kananaskis today, Canada is leading, not just with words, but with action. Let us build one economy. Let us support every family. Let us continue building a Canada that works for everyone. Let us build Canada strong.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the sentiment of the member from Mississauga, I am worried about the details in the legislation before us today.

Can the member confirm if the breakdown of interprovincial trade barriers will allow B.C. wine producers to sell their goods, without any federal rules in place, to any other province or territory? Second, why has forestry been excluded from projects of national interest?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have great wines right across our country, from B.C. to Ontario, where I am from, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. I am not naming all the provinces, but we have great wine.

I want to commend the provinces for taking a leadership stance to be able to break down those interprovincial barriers. What I can also say to the member is that, federally, we will eliminate those barriers. The federal government is eliminating those barriers—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I wonder what guarantees we have. We have already talked about carte blanche. What I am talking about is not only the 13 acts and seven regulations that the government would be free to ignore, but also what we need to discuss before proceeding.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. The Liberals are telling us that we must seize this opportunity at all costs. Do they mean an opportunity to govern as they see fit, without consulting anyone?

What guarantees do we have?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question and for the opportunity to share this with the member and all members in this House. We were home in our constituencies over the weekend, and I had an opportunity, in my remarks, to talk about many of the people I met on the street, at festivals and at different events. They all said we are in a crisis moment right now. We need urgency. We need to get things done. That is what our government is doing. It is ensuring that we are doing that with efficiency so we can deliver for Canadians. I would think it would be the same in the member's riding, that her constituents are looking for those deliveries and those results to be able to help families in her riding, as this will help families in all of our ridings.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to take this time to cede my speaking time to the member who had been heckling, wanting to speak and ask government members questions, but unfortunately she is not in the room, so I will—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

Hon. members know they cannot make reference to the presence or absence of members in this place. I just ask the member to carry on without that particular piece of commentary.

We have a point of order from the member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding the member that we cannot identify who is here and who is not.

However, I can say that I am here from the NDP and I am happy to take her question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It does not quite work that way.

The hon. member for London West.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague to expand a bit more on the internal trade barriers that Canadians gave us a mandate to address and the importance it would have for ridings like his and ridings like mine in the southwestern corridor.

Can the member take that question?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to talk about these interprovincial barriers. Since our Confederation, since 1867, I think we have had this discussion about interprovincial barriers and how they are stopping our entrepreneurs, stopping our economy and really putting the brakes on our economy from being able to develop.

This is the moment in Canadian history when there is an opportunity for us to take down those barriers and work together with our provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to be able to show Canadians that government can work. I will seize this opportunity. I know we will do it as a House here together, and this will strengthen our democracy.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government looks to the last 10 years on indigenous relations to reinforce its record, but it will not look to the last 10 years for its economic record.

Can the member comment on why the highest-impact item, oil and gas, has not been included in the economic plan?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to growing our economy, to making our economy the best economy in the G7. I say to the member, that includes clean and conventional energy. It includes agriculture. It is also about manufacturing. This bill speaks to all sectors, and it speaks to all Canadians. It is about our prosperity. It is about our future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Saskatoon—University.

This is my first speech in the House, and I would like to thank all the supporters from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

This takes me back to how I got started in politics in the first place. It is ironic, because as a first nations member in Kitimat, where I come from, I got my start on the environment file, meaning that we were trying to repair the damage done to our territory over the last 70 years: damage to the river, damage to the forest and damage to the air. That took up the bulk of our time. At that time, I had to research what an environmental assessment was, what a permit was and what aboriginal rights and title were. This took me years, as a labourer, at a time when the Internet was not readily available to us. We had one computer in our condemned band office, which used to be a residential school. It was hard. It took years to understand this, and nobody in my organization could really explain to me the full extent of what an environmental assessment was. Now, I am back. Over the years, I used to think about all this information in my head being useless, because I thought nobody cared and I could not use it anymore, and then I end up here, talking about the same things I was talking about in 2003, but this time it is flipped.

Canadians should understand that Bill C-5 is in two parts. One is about breaking down provincial boundaries, and I will not be talking about that. I will be talking about the second part, the exemption from environmental assessments in Canada.

The environmental assessments are responsible for LNG Canada, the largest private investment in Canadian history, being built in Kitimat to the highest standards, with transparency and accountability. Everybody understood what was going to happen, because there were federal and provincial authorities involved. More importantly, what strengthened that process was aboriginal rights and title. All first nations from Prince George to Kitimat were part of that process. We all got it; we understood it. There was an emergency of sorts back then, a crisis. Aboriginals were in poverty, and the violence of poverty goes along with that.

Now we have a new crisis, but nobody on the government side is talking about some of the conditions that led to this crisis in the first place. Bill C-69, that extensive bill with all those words in it, actually shut down the building of pipelines. There was also Bill C-48, the ban on tankers coming off the west coast of British Columbia.

The weakened state we are in, and the reason Bill C-5 is on the floor in the first place, is because of tariffs. However, I will go further and say that Canada has lost its place in the geo-energy world, the geopolitical world and the geo-economics world, and it was all self-inflicted. I mean, forget about the tariffs for a second and just think. Without a strong economy, we have a weak country. That is just basic, simple math. It is just common sense, and first nations understand this.

We are now talking about Bill C-5, which would basically exempt major projects from environmental assessments at the federal level, but it would not reduce or eliminate them at the provincial level. It is yet to be seen how much time would be reduced. There is no word on how the federal government will actually replace the consultation and accommodation of aboriginal rights and title, which are protected by section 35 of the Constitution. These processes have been in place, in formation over decades, but now, in one day, we are going to wipe that all out. We are going to say, “No, we don't need an environmental assessment.”

I agree that environmental assessments take a lot of money. They take a lot of time, and they are risky. We could do all the work we want and still not receive an environmental assessment certificate, not to mention what will happen if we have a harmonized environmental assessment with the provinces. There are so many different ways to say yes and no.

Now we are getting that from B.C., which will say no to pipelines, so what we are talking about here is almost a waste of time. If we do by some miracle get to a point where we get a pipeline approval, we are going to end up in court, because there are a tremendous number of gaps proposed by this bill. They were in place when I started in council in 2003, back when we were trying to figure out not only how we make our way in a new world as first nations, but how to strengthen the environmental standards in B.C. and Canada and get B.C. and Canada to live up to the conditions in a permit. That took a lot of work. When first nations say that they strengthened the permitting regulations and environmental assessments and used rights and title to do it, it cost first nations a lot of time, money and political capital, because we were trying to balance economics with the environment and the welfare of our people over the next 50, 100 or 150 years. It was difficult.

In Kitimat Village, we reached a happy medium where everybody benefited, not just first nations. Even our neighbouring first nations benefited, but on the basis of the processes in the province of British Columbia and Canada. We figured it out.

Yes, environmental assessments cost money, an incredible amount of money. For a major project, I recommend to proponents that they better have $50 million of disposable money just to get their certificate, with no guarantee they would get their certificate. Bill C-5 is now saying the government will forego an environmental assessment and give an exemption if it is politically acceptable to it. That would cut down on time and money, but how many groups will be lobbying the government to get on that exemption list? How will the government ensure that the lobbying is done openly, transparently and fairly?

We just went through a debate about contracts issued to a company to the tune of $60 million-plus where processes were in place to ensure there was no fraud or corruption with respect to the contracts being issued. We still have not gotten that resolved. What are we going to do when a $30-billion project comes down the pipe, or a $40-billion project? None of this makes any sense to me, except that there will be no environmental assessment for a major project unless, the way I see it, we find ways to cut corners. Where are we going to cut corners? We are already going to do it with the environmental assessment, but surely we are not going to cut corners with aboriginals on aboriginal rights and title, consultation and accommodation.

There are a lot of first nations that understand this process, but what is number one to the first nations in my area is to address the environment first. That is what we do, and we use our rights and title to do it. We understand there are jobs, money, training and everything associated with a project, but we have to address the environment first. The best way to do that is to engage in an environmental assessment. Usually, aboriginal rights and title run parallel to environmental assessments, both provincially and federally, but if there is no environmental assessment, then what is the process? How will aboriginals ensure that projects are done to the highest standards? We have always bragged that Canada has the highest environmental standards in the world. How do we ensure this with Bill C-5 going forward?

There are many questions here, but the Liberal government just proposed closure, meaning we will not get to debate this bill in full. It was tabled last week. I have never come across a bill this extensive and we only have a week to debate it. Not everybody is going to get up and get a chance to talk on behalf of their riding. Canada has to hold the government accountable. It has to know what is happening with Bill C-5 and the future for the next five, 10 or 20 years, because exemptions are going to be a big issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his maiden speech, but I want to remind him that not that long ago, the member and the Conservative caucus actually voted in favour of having the legislation go through in a timely fashion, by Friday. It is important for him to note this, and it was done for all the right reasons. We just came out of an election where there were substantial debates and concerns, and the ideas and principles of this legislation are a reflection of what Canadians are expecting the government and the official opposition to do. I appreciate that the Conservatives voted for this particular process.

Recognizing the importance of sustainable economic development is indeed a very serious issue that is on the minds of all legislators as they push forward with this legislation. Could the member provide his thoughts with regard to why he believes it should ultimately be passed, because—