Debates of June 16th, 2025

Consideration of Government Business No. 1

[The Acting Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is basically federal Liberal legislation, and we all understand there is a crisis.

I will speak on my own behalf. I voted for it because I believe in the economy and I believe in a strong country, but I need to see more details. I have to go back to my riding and explain why there will be exemptions coming to environmental assessments. I have to explain why there will be no environmental assessments by the federal government but there will be for provincial governments. I have to explain somehow that first nations, which have a right to carry out their own environmental assessments, may or may not be heard. We still have more questions on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Conservative colleague a question.

Since I became a member of this House, I have often seen the Conservatives get all worked up about Liberal corruption and collusion scandals, whether real or imagined. I will not hide the fact that I do not necessarily have the highest regard for the work ethic of the government and the Liberal Party. However, proposed section 21 in Bill C‑5 allows any major national project to be exempt from any law in Canada.

Is my colleague not concerned that the government could circumvent crime and ethics laws to save its own skin?

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

Mr. Speaker, first nations, under the Indian Act, are forced to understand good governance, and that includes transparency and accountability. In fact, under the funding agreements, if there is a deficit in first nations territory, they get punished. If there is a surplus, under the Indian Act they get punished. When we are trying to understand self-governance and trying to understand self-determination, transparency and accountability always rise to the top.

We talk about scandals here. I have been here a month and I have not seen transparency and accountability in any of the questions we have asked the Liberal government. I agree with my colleague. Where is this going to end up?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I articulated a concern earlier today, because it appears that the legislation is playing fast and loose with the charter. Specifically, we know the legislation proposes that projects of national importance are effectively a foregone conclusion. We also know that the Supreme Court has been very clear time and time again about the duty to consult indigenous peoples. That duty specifically requires good faith.

How can we have good faith when the government comes to the table with a project that is already a foregone conclusion? I am hoping the member can speak to that and about whether he believes the bill will meet constitutional scrutiny.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I know my colleague has already questioned consultation and accommodation duties. In terms of this bill, either the Liberal government understands the case law and ignores it or does not understand the case law to begin with.

Consulting on a bill has a specific definition of process for over 600 first nations. It is not simply a matter of sending an email or sending a letter and hoping for the best. It has to be followed up on. It is an elaborate process that costs money and time. I will be watching for this with my colleagues in the House.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is a case study on how not to build a nation, how to destroy a country from within. To understand how bad this bill and the government are, we need to understand how we got here if we are ever going to get through this as a country.

Since day one, the Liberal Party of Canada has been trying to reshape Canada into this weird reality. Many Canadians do not recognize this country, a postnational state that does not have an identity. Over the past decade, Canada has had the worst record on economic growth in the G7. For every category, Canada is dead last because of Liberal policies that have weakened our country and made our citizens poorer.

There are countless stats to confirm how far we have fallen. Just look at the over two million people in our country relying on food banks every day just to sustain themselves. This has been caused by Liberal inflation because of terrible policies like printing money, but maybe more importantly, it has also been caused by the laws the Liberals have enacted to ban growth within Canada, such as Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and the tanker ban. This has real-world implications; there is real Canadian suffering. I am also thinking of youth, who are facing record unemployment right now. Whole generations have given up on the dream of ever owning a home. The Liberals want a nation of renters. We are a country in decline because of the terrible policies of the government. It is almost as if in every way possible, the Liberals have made us more dependent on the state.

We do not talk enough about natural resources in Canada. We should be a stronger nation because of our foundation built on natural resources, but that will never happen while the Liberals are in power. The “keep it in the ground” gang has kidnapped our once proud country. We used to build in Canada. We used to celebrate new production in Canada, not cap it. Our citizens are hard working. We are a country, or used to be a country, of doers. After a decade of decline, the terrible Liberal antidevelopment laws have killed communities across our country.

As a country, we have spoken endlessly about the north and the importance of protecting and growing our presence in the territories, but because of new Liberal regulations, the north is hurting. This bill would not address that. I have travelled to the north. I have heard first-hand how Bill C-69 has stalled and ultimately killed every new mining project in the territories.

I have been told that in the territories there are two main types of jobs: people can work for the government on the taxpayers' dime or they can work in the mining sector. The government has stalled and changed regulations so that no mines are currently being built in the territories. Soon, there will only be government jobs, and all those mining jobs will be evaporated. Everyone is just going to get on the payroll of the government. That is the strong country the Liberals are building, a country that happily fires its own citizens and ships production and jobs to foreign countries. The Liberals have made our economy more beholden to foreign interests and have made a weaker Canada.

Because of Liberal anti-pipeline policies, we do not have ways to move our product to market. This results in America buying our oil at a discount. The citizens of this country own the resources in the ground, all the resources. No one special group has more say over them. We are the owners, not the corporations and not the government; the citizens are, for our benefit.

However, this once great country, which owns these resources, has a government that wants to keep them in the ground as long as it can. The manager of the resources, the government, has done a lousy job in managing our assets and our inheritance for the next generation. These brilliant Liberals have layered on so much regulation that pipeline companies such as Brookfield invest in pipelines around the world but not here in Canada. It is elbows up against our own people and resources.

We have closed all growth opportunities to export the product that we all own, making it easier for Americans to literally have us over a barrel. We have forced ourselves to sell to the Americans for a discount on every barrel of oil. It is upwards of $15 on every barrel that we just give away because of the crazy policies the Liberals have enacted for our country.

If we add that up with the millions and billions of barrels of oil, there is the money to reinvest in schools, hospitals, highways and true infrastructure. We would have the revenue because our economy is growing. We would have the ability to get our product to market, but not under the Liberals.

The Liberals have a record of selling out our country for what they claim is the environment. We might just stop that for a minute. The whole idea is that we have to keep it all in the ground and stop everything to save the planet, but just on the oil and gas equation, if the whole world would use oil from Canada, our emissions as a planet would go down by 25%. I am not sure whether they are hurting our country more or the environment more with their crazy Liberal policies.

It gets even worse when we talk about LNG. There is not a country in the world that would not want what we have, but we have squandered this opportunity. This is the worst missed opportunity in a generation. I am so embarrassed for our country about what has happened.

When the Liberal government formed government 10 years ago, there were 15 LNG plants lined up for Canada. There was not a single taxpayer dime in these projects; it was all private investment that would have driven our economy for a decade. These projects were billion-dollar projects located in coastal communities desperate for well-paying jobs that would allow families to buy a home, raise some kids and retire in a safe community. Those paycheques would have come from liquefied natural gas plants.

Unfortunately, the Liberals changed the policies, and only one is progressing. We still do not have it up and operational. If we remember the resource that is in the ground, the natural gas, it is owned by all of us. With what we are doing right now, if we are going to sell an ounce of natural gas outside Canada, it goes to our only customer, the United States of America.

America is our sole customer for natural gas. It takes our gas, transports it in the capacity that we do have in pipelines to the States, and it goes to liquefied natural gas plants, some of which are for the same companies that were proposing those plants in Canada. After the Liberals said no, they went to the States.

We send our gas to the States, and the Americans get the profit from liquefying it and selling it around the world. The profit and the jobs go to the Americans because of Liberal policies. This is the country the Liberals have built. All those jobs and opportunities have been lost to America because of Liberal regulation.

After a decade of crazy Liberal policies that have weakened the country, these crackerjacks are proposing to fast-track a limited number of nation-building projects. It is like Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

I hope families are not waiting. If someone is in one of the many families that have their careers tied up in a project that is waiting for approval from the government, this is the Willy Wonka magic golden ticket they are claiming. If they are waiting for that, I hope their project will go ahead. This is the kind of sweepstakes the Liberal government thinks is the best way to build a nation.

We have a country desperate for growth and all the good things that flow from economic activity. The Liberals only want a handful of those opportunities. This is limiting Canada's growth. The Liberals have weakened our country at the worst possible time. The government has had 10 years to improve interprovincial trade, but it has not.

The Liberals have benefited from a divided federation, so no one believes it when the Prime Minister says that the barriers will be coming down by Canada Day. Frustrations with Liberals have never been higher in Saskatchewan, and for good reason. Many families I know work in the uranium sector and do not trust Bill C-5 or what the government is up to.

Nuclear energy and uranium mining has been stalled in our country because of layering of multiple regulations. If we want to build a nation, I have a project for us. It is ready to go. It is the NexGen Rook 1 project. There are 1,300 high-paying jobs in northern Saskatchewan ready to go. It would result in over $10 billion in government revenue.

This is the project. This is one of thousands of projects across Canada that could actually build a nation. I plead with the Liberals to please put Canada first for a change and get this project done. This is just one of the uranium mining projects that are on the go in Canada and northern Saskatchewan.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

That is a perfect place to pause as we move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Sudbury has the floor.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting when the member talked about natural resources. Certainly, as the MP for Sudbury, the mining capital of Canada and, I would say, the world as well, I know that mining is very important. Critical minerals are of increasing importance as well.

The government invested $3.9 billion in the critical minerals strategy, which the member's party voted against. I would be interested to know whether the member understands the need to support that. I will give one example: The United States is dependent on 80% of nickel from Ontario, essentially Sudbury, for its aerospace and defence work, so the importance of investing in our natural resources, and certainly in critical minerals, with $3.9 billion—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to interrupt the member to provide time for a response.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University has the floor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member claims $3.9 billion has been put into this project. How many mines have been built? It is zero. I think back to my province of Saskatchewan. BHP has the largest mine that is getting built right now. The only reason that mine is going forward is that it was grandfathered in under old regulations, not under Bill C-69.

This is a failure of the Liberals. They spent billions of dollars on a critical minerals strategy, and potash is one of those minerals, but there are no other mines being proposed and/or being built right now because of the over-regulations that you guys have burdened our industry with.

I would not be proud about your mining history.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions go through the Chair.

For questions and comments, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, something unusual happened, namely that closure was adopted, and the official opposition agreed to have the entire House subjected to closure.

I would like my colleague to comment on the consequences of his vote this morning and the precedent it sets, especially when we are talking about a bill that will give sweeping powers to the Prime Minister's committee, namely the Privy Council, the power to say that just about anything is in the national interest. This will therefore go beyond the jurisdiction of the provinces, indigenous peoples and Parliament.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I share some of my hon. colleague's frustrations. The provinces have been told by Ottawa what to do, what not to do and how to do it, but we have heard from the courts how unconstitutional what the Liberals have done in the last 10 years is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member seems to have a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, for a while there was no interpretation. I would just like to see if it is working.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will speak in English. Is the interpretation working in French?

It is working now. I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether members caught all that, but Ottawa has messed things up in our provinces and has dictated to the provinces in their jurisdictions. The courts have ruled how unconstitutionally Ottawa has been treating our provinces, and that includes Quebec and Saskatchewan. Now with Bill C-5, if someone is a Liberal insider, they are going to be successful in this country. It is the Liberals' track record, for the last 10 years, that if someone was a Liberal insider, they made cake. For everyone else, it is too bad, and that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

For questions and comments, the hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna has the floor.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal member gave a bit of the nickel tour, and I will give the copper tour, or a penny tour.

In my old riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, there were two copper pit mines, one just outside Princeton and one outside Logan Lake, and both companies at the time wanted to expand their operations, but they were actually concerned that they would be subject to Bill C-69. It would add a whole lengthy process that, in the day, would not be better than the provincial one and would just cost them, as Bill C-69 measures things that are not contemplated provincially or are calculated in a different sense, making nothing but work and paper for accountants.

Does the member think that the government has really lost an opportunity, instead of going back to the drawing board and redrawing Bill C-69, getting rid of the unconstitutional elements and red tape? Is that not where their focus should be?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right that Bill C-5 is not a fix; it is how to get Liberal insiders on a select list of projects that will get done. This is ethically challenging, and it opens up a litany of opportunities in which insiders are going to get rich, once again, because of the Liberal government. It will pick winners and losers, versus letting the market decide.

To the example that you raised on Bill C-69 and on ways to save it, we do need regulations and we need protections, but what we do not need is what we currently have, with which nothing is getting done. We are in a crisis in Canada, and the Liberals do not have the answers, because they are the ones who actually messed up this country so badly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I just remind all the members to address their comments through the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say off the top that I will be splitting my time with a great new member, the hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

Since this is my first time speaking for a substantive length of time since the election, please allow me to thank the hard-working, industrious people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North for the honour of being their voice and their servant and for carrying their hopes and dreams to this place. While I have lived and worked in other places in North America in my career, I have always felt and known that the communities of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North are my true home, and home is where the heart is. It is the honour of my lifetime to serve these great communities. I want to thank my campaign team, including Simon, Mona, Jordan, Wendy, Jim and hundreds of volunteers. Above all, I thank my wife, Tracy, without whose love and support I certainly would not be here today. I will now go to the matter at hand.

Canadians are struggling, not because we lack talent and not because we lack resources, but because we are too often being held back by red tape, gatekeeping and a government that over-promises and under-delivers. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to getting big projects built or trying to move goods and services and workers across provincial lines in our own country. These barriers do not cost us only time and money; they also cost us opportunities, investments and jobs.

That is why Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, is such a missed opportunity. It claims to deliver free trade and fast-tracked projects, but the reality is it would deliver bureaucratic theatre; it is a showpiece of announcements without the substance to back them up.

Let us start with part 1 of the bill, the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act. The premise is good. Canadians should be able to work and trade freely across the country without unnecessary federal barriers. However, the scope of this section is minuscule. It would affect a tiny subset of goods and services. In fact, during government briefings on the bill, one of the few examples offered was clean energy labels on washing machines, which is certainly underwhelming.

There is no comprehensive list of affected items. There is no plan to deal with the biggest trade barriers, no mechanism to assess progress and no timeline. There is no effort to create a blue seal licensing standard that would allow skilled immigrants and professionals, such as doctors, nurses and engineers, to work in the province next door, despite meeting rigorous national standards. Therefore, this was a missed chance to unlock the talent that is already here in this country.

There is also a missed opportunity to incentivize the provinces to remove their own barriers. The most effective governments are those that find ways to align incentives, not those that just issue guidance and hope for the best. That is why Conservatives have proposed a real solution to offer financial bonuses to provinces for every interprovincial trade barrier they eliminate. It would be a win-win-win. It would boost GDP and increase federal revenues. In fact, economists estimate that removing interprovincial trade barriers could add as much as $200 billion to Canada's economy; yet, instead of seizing that opportunity, Bill C-5 takes a baby step. It scratches the surface when Canadians are looking for bold, transformative reform.

Part 2 of the bill is the building Canada act. The most revealing part of this section is not what it proposes but what it omits. It is an admission by the government that its own laws are the problem and that Liberal legislation, such as Bill C-69, the shipping ban and the energy cap, are laws that have tied our economies in a knot. The Liberals know it, investors know it and workers know it. The bill is the Liberals' workaround, a way to admit failure without fixing the root of the problem. The bill tries to create selective escape hatches for a few lucky projects, but it would keep all the red tape in place. It is a patchwork solution for a broken process.

There is no clarity on which projects would qualify, no defined criteria for what would constitute the national interest and no certainty for investors or communities. It is just another layer of bureaucracy and a lot of discretion left in the hands of ministers. Even with the promise of a two-year timeline, provincial vetoes would remain, and the sunset clause would limit the use of these powers to just five years. How is anyone supposed to plan long term?

Here is the most frustrating part. The Liberals are essentially picking and choosing which projects get exemptions, without fixing the laws that block everything else. If they can fast-track one project, why not all deserving projects? Why not fix the system for everyone, not just the politically connected few? Canadians do not want political favours. They want fairness, they want clarity, and they want to build. That is why Conservatives support real reform, one-and-done approvals, a national energy corridor and shovel-ready zones with clear timelines and firm standards. We believe all worthy projects should be able to proceed, not just the ones that win favour from this week's minister. We have the people and the expertise in Canada. We have the resources. What we need is a government that believes in Canada's potential again.

Let us talk about the broader context. Canada has posted the worst growth in the G7 over the last decade, yet we have all the national resources in the world. We have everything the world wants. At the same time, we are selling our energy to the United States at a discount. Our farmers, miners and builders are being boxed in by the federal government. Global demand for energy, food and raw materials is surging. Other countries are stepping up, but Canada is standing still. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said it well: “internal trade barriers still act like a [self-imposed] 21% tariff.” What did we get from this bill? We got a couple of washing machines.

Meanwhile, U.S. tariffs have turned a simmering problem into a full-blown crisis. Canadian workers and exporters are caught in the middle, and the government has no answer. Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business summed it up when he said the spirit of this bill may be positive, but in practice, it will not move the needle.

We could be leading the world. Again, we have everything the world wants. Eighteen LNG projects, as has been mentioned, sat on Trudeau's desk awaiting approval. Germany, Japan and other countries came looking for our LNG. We could have been helping get the world off coal and replacing European dependence on Russian natural gas, yet the Liberals turned the German chancellor away and said there was no business case. Will this be more of the same?

This is not just about economics; it is about sovereignty, national unity and building a future where Canada leads in so many sectors as we are capable of doing. It is about restoring the Canadian promise to generations that feel abandoned by their government. Conservatives will not stand in the way of the minor progress of this bill, but we will not pretend the bill would deliver what it claims. We will work in committee this week to strengthen it, seek real amendments and keep pushing for solutions that go beyond optics and tackle the root cause of stagnation. Canadians do not want more red tape and more process. They want paycheques, they want purpose, they want projects to get built, and they want to be proud of this country and what it can do, once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the legislation we have before us is a reflection of the April 28 decision. It is something Canadians want and expect from not only the government but the opposition. I am very grateful that the Conservative Party today voted in favour of us being able to get this legislation through so we can present it to Canadians before July 1.

Having said that, the Prime Minister and the administration have been very proactive, meeting with premiers of all different political stripes. It sends a powerful message. In fact, we said we would work with a team Canada approach in delivering for Canadians in a major election platform, a platform that was, at least in part, accepted by the Conservative Party.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the team Canada approach that has been led by the Prime Minister of Canada.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, Canada has everything the world wants. I cited 18 LNG projects that languished on the desk of the former prime minister. We have the ability to unleash great potential, and this bill does not go far enough. The new old government, or the old new government, has had 10 years to address that, and what we get is a very tiny, baby-step piece of legislation just before the summer recess to create the illusion that something is being done. Conservatives support some progress, but my goodness, we have everything the world wants, we should be booming in this country, and we need to unleash that potential.