Debates of June 20th, 2025

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would interrupt the member briefly.

The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be giving a speech on the subject matter of the bill she is introducing. The point of this is to introduce the bill and give a quick summary of it. She has not even mentioned the bill yet or what is in it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the member for the intervention. We do allow a brief summary and explanation of the bill. The member is well within her time at this point.

The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City may carry on from where she left off.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the message the government is sending is that struggling Canadians, trauma survivors and those battling depression, schizophrenia or PTSD are being told that death is a solution we are now willing to offer in response to a life of suffering, often compounded by harm this very society has caused them. That is not health care. That is not compassion. It is abandonment. Mental illness is treatable, and recovery is possible, but only if we show up and help.

Canadians are watching. They need us to stand up for life, dignity and hope.

It is my honour and privilege to rise today and introduce an act to amend the Criminal Code on medical assistance in dying.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Motion for Travel

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That in relation to the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees & Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors Annual Conference, five members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Regina, Saskatchewan, from September 7 to 10, 2025, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

I will note as well that this motion was passed unanimously this week at committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

All those opposed to the member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Canada Pension Plan

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today with respect to a petition. This petition is brought to us by petitioners as all Canadians face an inflation crisis. These particular petitioners are petitioning on behalf of seniors, who are facing incredibly high costs, often with fixed income. They are asking for relief, particularly for those who are survivors, or widows or widowers, from the CPP benefit and asking for 100% of the survivor benefit.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, as reported with amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

One Canadian Economy Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, I have been in the House for about nine years now, and I have to say, Bill C‑5 is the worst bill I have ever worked on. It is the worst bill I have ever seen make its way through the House. These are strong words, but it is the truth.

The government's approach reveals a thoroughly autocratic management style. Despite everything, we managed to get rid of a few irritants, a few items that were blatantly unacceptable, although many others remain. In fact, we had to twist the government's arm to get last-minute gains like having the Indian Act and the Official Languages Act removed from the list of acts that could be sidestepped under the major projects bill.

It should not be a herculean task to prevent the government from bypassing every law on the books to please the Liberal Party's pals. Some laws should be untouchable. Francophone rights should not even be up for discussion; nor should indigenous rights. We won those small victories because we got a little last-minute support on a few things from the Conservative Party.

We also managed to achieve a little more transparency around the use and application of this act thanks to an oversight committee similar to the one we have for emergency measures. We also made sure that the special powers given to ministers cannot be used when Parliament is dissolved or the House is adjourned. These are small victories, but they do not change the substance of the bill.

We also proposed other amendments that sought to improve environmental oversight, but they were rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition, as were our amendments aimed at giving Quebec the right to say no to projects that Ottawa wants to fast-track. We proposed amendments to force the bill and the government to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces and territories, but those amendments were also rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition.

We introduced an amendment to stop certain projects from being fast-tracked and to give the House the power to do that. This amendment would have allowed the House to draw attention to the fact that the government was going too far when it was not happy with these fast-tracked projects. Once again, our amendment was rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition. We wanted to completely eliminate the power to circumvent laws by order in council for major projects. That was also challenged and rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition.

As we know, normally, the larger the project, the greater its impact and the more social dialogue it requires. However, in this case, we are seeing the opposite: The larger the project, the more political games there will be. The larger the project, the more people will have to suffer the consequences of something that they were not even consulted about.

This opens the door to all sorts of biased applications, all sorts of arbitrary decisions and greater cronyism. One would think we are living in a banana republic. Usually, in modern democracies, it is the opposite. We have the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch, which are all independent from one another. However, what we are seeing here is the executive branch giving itself the power to bypass the legislative branch. That is unfortunate and it is really problematic to see the government being given the power to choose projects, the power to choose what projects should be designated as being in the national interest, the power to choose the conditions that will apply to projects, and the power to circumvent laws that this Parliament passed, all by order in council. The government is even being given the power to issue an order changing the project conditions midstream, if the developers do not like them.

The bill that is before us is really serious, and I do not understand why members of the House do not realize that. Normally, checks and balances exist in a society for good reason: to prevent the abuse of power. What we are seeing on the other side of the House is a government that wants to give itself all the power and govern like our neighbours south of the border. We are speaking out against that. I thought that this was something that we wanted to do away with in the last election, but this is what we are seeing the government do today.

We should not trust a government that not only wants to govern by order in council, but also wants to govern in secret, with no accountability.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, the degree to which the Bloc does not support Bill C-5. Every region of the country will benefit from it. The Bloc members seem to be concerned about the process, when we know it is not just the Liberals; we have Conservatives and Liberals who have recognized the theme of the national election that was held on April 28. It was universally accepted in terms of developing and promoting one Canadian economy, because it helps the people of Quebec. We can think in terms of hydro in the province of Quebec.

Why is the Bloc putting their separatist attitudes above the interests of the people of Quebec when, even in the most recent mandate, April 28, just weeks ago, we got that very strong message? The Bloc members are ignoring the people of Quebec. I say shame on them.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary's only argument against what I said is that I am a separatist, that means he is all out of arguments.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct that the bill does provide the government with discretion to approve projects. I guess where the Conservatives and the Bloc separate is the fact that the Bloc members voted for Bill C-69. They supported the industrial carbon tax. This is the very reason Bill C-5 is necessary.

Will the member vote with Conservatives to eliminate Bill C-69?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my Conservative colleague is asking that question, because we were able to mitigate the most extreme aspects of the bill, even though it remains every bit as problematic and troublesome.

It is not quite as bad as it was, but what really disappointed me is that some of the amendments we proposed would have had an environmental impact and would have provided greater protection for biodiversity. Unfortunately, every time we mentioned the environment or biodiversity, the Conservatives were not on our side.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member from the Bloc was uncomfortable with the question, but it does not necessarily justify the answer he provided, because the people of Quebec, much like the people of Canada, see the merit of this particular piece of legislation. We have a vast majority of members of Parliament who see the value, who want to see Bill C-5 pass, yet if it were up to the Bloc, this legislation would never pass. They would like to postpone it indefinitely.

The question that the people of Quebec and Canada have for the Bloc members is, why does the Bloc disagree with building one stronger, healthier Canada, with the potential of billions of dollars that would be saved for everyone?

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

Mr. Speaker, given how long the parliamentary secretary has been here, he should have been rewarded with a ministerial position for his good service to the Liberal Party.

Essentially, he is saying that a majority of the population supports the bill. He even claims that a majority of Quebeckers support the bill, but I have not seen any figures to back that up, and I know very well that he does not have any. The government did not want to listen to the people, poll them or give them time to form an opinion because the Liberals imposed time allocation on the study of the bill, even in committee.

The only majority the member is talking about is the parliamentary majority, and that is not necessarily the majority of the population, because the Liberals are muzzling Parliament.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for our work together in trying to improve Bill C-5 as best we could. I am glad we won the fight to ensure there would be some limits on the cabinet in Bill C-5 to prevent it from exempting laws such as the Access to Information Act, the Lobbying Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Criminal Code, the Investment Canada Act, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Trade Unions Act, the Explosives Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Indian Act, the Governor General's Act and the Official Languages Act. That is an issue on which we worked co-operatively to help the Liberals improve the bill.

Maybe the member wants to comment on why in the heck they would ever try to sidestep all those laws in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very interesting. Indeed, we managed to get rid of a whole bunch of extreme powers that this government wanted to give itself.

Unfortunately, we had to do our work hastily on the back of a napkin in five minutes. We were adding acts in a rush, but we were unable to do a comprehensive review, which means that there are likely many other laws that are not in this bill that can still be circumvented.

This country has been around for more than 150 years. Many laws have been voted on, but, unfortunately, a list of 10 or 15 laws is not enough to ensure that this bill will have the necessary framework and limitations.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this debate on the one Canadian economy act.

We are here with this bill on these timelines because the government was given a mandate to unite, protect and build Canada. I do not think we expected to be in this place with this bill, but necessity is the mother of invention, and this crisis has created an opportunity for us to find and build the new solidarity we need to build Canada in the coming years. We did not expect to be in this place with this bill because, for centuries, generations of Canadians, immigrants to and from Canada, generations of Canadian leaders, had managed to balance our north-south relationship with the United States and the east-west relationship within Canada. The complex set of relationships between different indigenous peoples on this continent and between indigenous peoples and settlers continues to define both sets of relationships, but both of these east-west and north-south ties were fundamental to the growth of Canada.

The east-west relationship is the one that we generally learned in history class and that we continue to live and work on in the House. On this side of the House, with members from every province and two of three territories, it is one we take incredibly seriously. We know how that east-west relationship evolved. It was with the expansion of the country, first west and then north and then back east. There was the building of infrastructure, including railways, highways, waterways, and energy and electricity connections. There were the debates that arose from our different regional perspectives on those projects, including the building of businesses and family ties, as well as the many constitutional battles that brought some of us here, or scarred us, which were often focused on Quebec or the rest of Canada's relationship with it, but it is one on which we have all engaged. There are, again, the injustices that have been or are being done with respect to indigenous peoples, and they are part of the east-west relationship that we continue to live.

To build Canada from east to west took imagination, commitment and conviction, and this new government, this 45th Parliament, along with our constituents, are all beneficiaries of that hard work to build the country from east to west. The north-south ties are not always the daily concern of the House or of Canadian leaders, but it is a set of ties that so many of us live with every day, and we cannot understand the monumental east-west shifts without having the context of our north-south relationship, because the north-south ties predate the creation of the Dominion of Canada, too. There is the war of independence and the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists, the War of 1812, the threat of the Fenian raids and the American Civil War.

We have had to manage the north-south relationship since July 1, 1867, and occasionally we have taken great strides, whether it was with the Auto Pact, the acid rain treaty, the free trade agreements or our participation in the Afghanistan mission. While our predecessors in these seats debated these issues, Canadians continued to build north-south ties, including businesses, conferences, holidays, research partnerships, shopping and, most importantly, the family ties in immigration that define our two nations. These are among the Maritimes, Quebec and New England, the Canadian prairie provinces, and the U.S. Midwest and west. They are among Niagara and Buffalo, Windsor and Detroit, Waterloo and Silicon Valley, Tsawwassen, B.C. and Point Roberts, as well as Washington, and the Mohawk nation of Akwesasne. These are all north-south connections that define the Canadian-U.S. relationship.

The north-south relationship was captured so well by President John F. Kennedy in his address to this chamber 64 years ago when he said, and I think some of us have heard these words before, “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies.” Whenever we had a difficulty with the north-south relationship, we could generally make progress on it, not necessarily solving it, but continuing to work on it. All the time the north-south relationship developed, our economy, along with our web of connections, which each of us and our constituents had with our neighbours to the south, also grew.

From time to time, we would hear from people in Canada that not all was well with the north-south relationship for Canadian artists and creators, our softwood lumber industry, refugees and Canadian innovators. However, again, generally, this country has succeeded. Indeed, this country exists and has survived because we were able to manage both our east-west relationships and our north-south relationships and not let one be destroyed by the other. For decades and centuries, we have been able to keep these two sets of relationships balanced. As long as those basic collective benefits of the north-south relationship of economic and security were there, we had the luxury of focusing our conflict on the east-west relationship here, but that has changed, and now we have to change.

President Kennedy's description of our north-south relationship no longer holds, at least not all of it, anyway. Geography continues to make us neighbours, now both physically and digitally. History continues to make us friends, even if some of those individual friendships or family connections have been tested, but the new U.S. administration is breaking our economic partnership vocally and explicitly. It is threatening our sovereignty vocally and explicitly.

This means that we need to find new allies. We have a necessity to find new allies. Our government is doing this every day, and we are showing leadership on this through our G7 presidency, but we need to find and build new allies, new economies and new ties in the place we should have been looking to all along, which is at home. No matter how strong the family relationships are across the border, no matter how close the border is or how closely tied our economies continue to be, we have to look east-west for our economy, our security and our sovereignty.

That means the one Canadian economy act. As the House knows, the one Canadian economy act is in two sections. There are two new proposed pieces of legislation: the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.

The free trade and labour mobility in Canada act would build those east-west ties that we all neglected, and here are some examples: a farmer in Saskatchewan grows organic produce and wants to sell it in Alberta, but the certification rules just do not line up; a certified welder in Nova Scotia is offered a short-term job in a federally regulated project in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they have to reapply for recognition; or a tech firm in Ontario builds an energy-efficient appliance that meets the highest standards, but when they market it in B.C., they are told to go through another process.

The building Canada act is a strong bill, improved by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, with an engaged Parliament, which we are engaging with today, with protections both in the bill and in the Constitution, to make sure we do nation building more quickly and do it right, in the way the Minister of Indigenous Services said so well in the House earlier today. However, as much as the individual provisions of the bill are important, it is the imagination and the possibility that it has already unleashed that I am looking forward to.

Provincial premiers are working together and working with us to propose new projects to build. Business and labour leaders are standing up and standing together to build. They include leaders such as Finn Johnson of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, who said, “These nation-building projects are going to be essential to Canada's growth in the short and long-term—and UBC members will be there to build them”. There are also leaders such as Goldy Hyder of the Business Council of Canada, who said that Bill C-5 can enable us to leap out of the starting block allowing Canada to finish first in the global race for trade. There is also the Hon. Lisa Raitt, who used to sit in the chamber with us, from Coalition for a Better Future. She said that she believes Bill C-5 can play a role in strengthening Canada's long-term economic foundations. These are some of the leaders who are inspired by what the bill proposes and the mandate that we had in this election to be bold and ambitious and build the Canadian economy.

Canadians at large, including Canadians in my riding, are taking the broader perspective. They know how important the north-south relationship is, and they continue to guard and cherish those relationships and friendships, as well as the business ties and academic ties, but they know that what we took for granted in that relationship is at risk. They know that John F. Kennedy's formulation of the allyship, and the economic and security benefits we have from that relationship, are at risk. They are pleading with us to pass the bill to get going on these major nation-building projects from coast to coast, and for their elected leaders, business leaders and union leaders to put capital and their shoulders into this work. I commend the bill to the House.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, especially with respect to interprovincial trade, I think we all agree that we need more of it, particularly in the context of the deteriorating relationship with our neighbour to the south. We agree on that, but the vast majority of interprovincial trade barriers will still remain after the passage of the bill.

Do you think that things such as providing financial incentives to the provinces and a program such as the proposed blue seal program, which would allow nurses or doctors to work from coast to coast, would be positive?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. The hon. member for Northumberland—Clarke knows that questions have to be addressed through the Chair.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I worked in provincial government for many years and my interpretation of both the question and these programs is that the programs are best coming from the ground up with the professions, which are working hard to put down some of their more parochial concerns, and have provinces and governments that are behind them. Therefore, I believe this legislation would create that framework and that inspiration for more of this kind of work is to be done.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the week, I have been trying to understand how Bill C-5 is going to help aluminum processors and primary aluminum producers. I have not found the answer.

Perhaps my colleague can help us with that. Bill C‑5 was supposed to respond to the tariff war. How does Bill C‑5 support primary aluminum producers and aluminum processors?