House of Commons Hansard #20 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-5.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
The Application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-5 Jenny Kwan argues Bill C-5, which addresses domestic trade barriers and infrastructure project acceleration, contains unrelated matters and asks the Speaker to divide it for separate votes under Standing Order 69.1(1). 800 words.
One Canadian Economy Act Report stage of Bill C-5. The bill, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, aims to reduce interprovincial trade barriers and expedite major projects deemed in the national interest. Members debated amendments to Clause 4 concerning project approval, oversight, and exemptions from other laws. While parties largely support reducing trade barriers, concerns were raised about the bill's impact on indigenous rights, environmental protection, provincial jurisdiction, and the process used, with some criticizing the government's approach and lack of transparency. 34500 words, 6 hours in 3 segments: 1 2 3.
Voting Pattern for Report Stage of Bill C-5 Members raise a point of order regarding the grouping of amendments for voting on Bill C-5, arguing that motions concerning different subjects should be voted on separately. 600 words.
Criminal Code First reading of Bill C-218. The bill amends the Criminal Code on medical assistance in dying, raising concerns about MAID becoming available solely for mental health challenges starting in March 2027. 400 words.
Voting Pattern for Report Stage of Bill C-5—Speaker's Ruling Speaker rules on points of order regarding Bill C-5, upholding the non-selection of report stage amendments not submitted in committee by a deadline, but granting separate votes on two other motions. 500 words.
The Application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C‑5—Speaker's Ruling Speaker rules on Bill C-5 point of order, agreeing with the member for Vancouver East to divide the vote at third reading because the bill's two parts lack a common element, despite the request being made late. 900 words.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, personally, I do not really understand why my Conservative colleagues are grumbling about Bill C-5.
Earlier, during oral question period, my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said that he thinks it is a Pierre Poilievre bill wearing a red tie. I honestly think that the Conservatives' and Liberals' shared interest in this bill is founded on the sacred bond between those who are pro-oil. The Conservatives should be happy.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Speaker, as a female MP, I would like to take up the point that my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche made. Not all colleagues elected to the House are exceptional. I think there is a petition going around against one of his colleagues that was launched by a group of women. My colleague is a scholar, he is educated and he knows what “exceptional” means. When he said that, it had an impact on me as a woman. Perhaps he might reconsider his comment.
I would like my colleague to tell me why the Liberals were against the amendments that call for the provinces and Quebec to be consulted.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, this bill is another example of predatory federalism. The government's objective is to have one economy and just one type of assessment, and be able to shove fossil fuel energy projects down Quebec's throat when they do not meet our expectations. It is going to put billions of dollars into that. What the government is doing is ensuring that it has the regulatory environment to complete this project that only responds to the oil and gas industry's needs.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-5, which is a monster of a bill. Unfortunately, I am also a little disappointed in our parliamentary institutions, because our rights as parliamentarians are being trampled on. We have not had much opportunity to discuss this bill, even though it has very wide-ranging implications and far-reaching consequences that will persist for years to come, perhaps even for decades to come.
I want to talk about both the form and the substance of the bill. However, before addressing the substance, I would like to point out that this week, we are witnessing a kind of parliamentary power grab by the Liberal government, which is quite damaging and sad. There are even people, notably those at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, who say that this is a way of circumventing democracy. It is a way of bypassing parliamentarians and bypassing the normal process of studying a bill, which would have allowed us to improve it and determine all its consequences and implications.
For fast-tracked approvals involving huge national infrastructure projects whose content, scope and nature is not entirely clear, we should be sitting down with communities across the country and listening to what they have to say. We should be hearing from experts, scientists and first nations, who have constitutionally recognized rights. We should also be hearing from municipalities, the provinces and Canadians, who have concerns of their own. The government, however, is ramming this bill down our throats in just a few days. One committee meeting was held to discuss and adopt amendments. I have never seen the likes of it. It is Stephen Harper all over again but on steroids. I do not know what has gotten into the Liberals. There was absolutely no national emergency to justify passing this bill so quickly. It opens the door to mistakes that could have serious and very long-term consequences.
This bill has two parts. It so clearly has two parts that I want to congratulate my NDP colleague from Vancouver East on successfully splitting the bill so we can have two votes. Indeed, the two parts cover two completely different subjects. My colleague did some excellent work here, and I want to congratulate her again. The conversation about reducing non-tariff barriers is something we generally agree on, if it can help interprovincial trade and make life easier for our entrepreneurs. Labour mobility is obviously something we have been calling for, as have unions and workers. As we see it, the fact that we can support that part is a good thing.
However, we will still be extremely cautious when the time comes to adopt regulations and see how this is going to be implemented. Reducing non-tariff barriers between the provinces must not trigger a race to the bottom, to lowest-common-denominator standards and regulations that could make certain occupational health and safety situations more dangerous or pose a danger to the public. We agree in principle, but we will have to see how they intend to implement this.
As for the second part of the bill, which is causing a lot of talk in society, we have many concerns about it too. Many people are writing to our offices, and many groups want to contact us. They say we need to proceed with caution, because it is dangerous. The government is putting things in the bill that have never been done before. The consequences could be serious and irreversible. I think the word “irreversible” is especially important. We are stepping onto a slippery slope, and there will be no way to climb back up.
There are a number of problems. Equiterre, a well-known environmental organization in Quebec, wrote us to raise quite a few points that deserved to be debated here. Equiterre says that the bill is vague about definitions, the nature of projects and their impact on communities, and that it is problematic with respect to circumventing environmental statutes and regulations, weakening accountability mechanisms and public participation, potentially infringing on provincial powers, and concentrating powers in the hands of the executive branch, particularly one minister.
That is extremely worrisome and all of those points are problematic for us. The bill contains some extremely vague definitions and I will quote the bill directly so that everyone understands: "The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence".
It seems that, ultimately, what is important to the Liberals is investor confidence. We all agree on the part before that. We in the NDP agree that there should be infrastructure projects. We agree that projects should be carried out and that there should be development. We agree on creating good jobs, especially good unionized jobs. The member for Winnipeg-Centre was able to get an amendment passed to indicate the importance of unionized jobs. That is crucial to us in the NDP.
Many infrastructure projects, especially those relating to transportation, could be very beneficial to various communities. High-speed rail in Canada would be a very good thing. In our opinion, building truly affordable housing, social housing and co-operative housing while we are in the midst of a housing crisis is a project of national interest. There are also the intercity transportation projects in the regions. All those projects would create jobs and help all of our communities.
However, the proposals in this bill are a bit vague and hazy. It is a bit of a catch-all. It gives one minister and one office the authority to unilaterally decide whether projects should be put on the list of projects of national interest.
What are these criteria? The first is to “strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security”. That is fine. The second is to “provide economic or other benefits to Canada”. Putting the term “or other” in a bill means the sky is the limit. The third criterion is to “have a high likelihood of successful execution”. The bill ensures that, once a project makes the list, it is guaranteed to move forward.
The fourth criterion is to “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”. That is interesting. What does advancing the interests of indigenous peoples mean if their rights are not respected? What does advancing their interests mean if we fail to uphold treaties, abide by the Constitution or respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? That is not what was written down, so we have to be extremely cautious. The fifth criterion is to “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change”.
I do not see how far-fetched notions like decarbonized oil can be considered clean growth. There is no such thing. Increasing oil and gas production, particularly in the oil sands, is completely incompatible with the Paris Agreement, with meeting our 2030 targets and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. On the contrary, all of the reports from the environment commissioners tell us that we are on the wrong track and will not meet our targets. They are telling us that the Liberals have been dragging their feet for 10 years and have embarked on all sorts of contradictory policies, and as a result, no one takes them seriously.
What must be understood is that we have been told time and again that the minister's power is excessive and discretionary. He relies on the criteria I just read. Once a project is on the list, it is not a matter of if the project will be carried out, but when and how. All of society's checks and balances are muzzled—a reality we are familiar with—and can no longer do anything. By then it is too late, and the game is over. We are stuck with the project, regardless of the consequences, regardless of whether the consultations were done properly or not, regardless of whether the issue was properly studied or not, regardless of whether the groups were heard or not, and regardless of whether the rights of first nations are respected or not. The Liberal Party is giving the government and the minister who will be responsible the power to do this.
In fact, what we are witnessing today are Stephen Harper's and Pierre Poilievre's wildest dreams coming true. What we are seeing today is the Prime Minister of Canada taking his mask off, lifting it over his head, and declaring that he had been a Conservative all along and had simply not told us. That is why we are seeing this Conservative-Liberal alliance in the House right now, not only to pass this dangerous bill but also to do so by imposing closure and trampling on the rights of the members here. We are here to represent the people who elected us. We have serious work to do. What we in the NDP are saying is that the government should have taken the time to do things right. This shoddy work is not going to create jobs; it is going to create lawsuits. It will create litigation. It will end up in the courts, and the only ones who will benefit from the situation are the lawyers who will be raking in their fees.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have expressed to members of the Bloc that, on April 28, Canadians sent a very strong message, not only to the leader of the Liberal Party but also to all members of the House, and the Prime Minister of Canada has made it very clear that this is in fact a reflection of a very clear mandate that was given to the House.
We appreciate the support coming from the Conservatives, but the Bloc and the New Democrats are completely offside, coming up with issues to filibuster or to not allow the bill to even pass. Fortunately, because of working with the Conservatives, we now will be able to get the bill passed.
Why is the member not respecting the mandate that was actually given to every member of the House to build one strong Canadian economy—
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I respect the mandate that the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie gave me, which is to defend their interests, good jobs, the environment and the rights of indigenous peoples. That is what I am doing here today.
The second thing I would like to say is that this bill does something absolutely unprecedented and extraordinary. It allows projects of national interest to not comply with existing federal laws, especially environmental protection laws.
Équiterre is clear on this:
Schedule 2...identifies which laws the government may choose to ignore, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations and the Marine Mammal Regulations.
Schedule 2 to Bill C‑5 makes it possible to circumvent federal environmental protection laws.
What is going on here?
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Uqaqtittiji, I am glad that my colleague touched on indigenous peoples in his speech as well. I think that by the brilliance of our colleague, the member for Vancouver East, the parties will now be able to vote separately on part 1 and part 2.
I wonder whether the member can share with us what this opens up as an opportunity for the Conservatives who, during the debates, have been touting the protection of indigenous peoples' rights all along. This is their opportunity to act on what they have been debating on, while ensuring that indigenous peoples' rights are protected by voting “no” to part 2 of the bill.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. Advocating for the people of Nunavut, the Inuit, is always her top priority, as is defending the rights of indigenous peoples.
During the short amount of time we had for discussions, the Conservatives touted the importance of reconciliation, working with the indigenous peoples and respecting treaties and their rights. Indeed, we can now all vote together on part 1, which will reduce trade barriers between the provinces and stimulate the economy and labour mobility.
If the Conservatives want to prove that they are consistent and willing to put their money where their mouths are, they now have the opportunity to keep part 1 and move forward. Then they can vote against part 2 and come back here for a real discussion, a real study and a real debate with parliamentarians, as well as with first nations, experts and environmental groups.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, let me get this right. The New Democrats, the seven independent members, have decided that they are going to vote in favour of part 1, but they are in opposition to projects deemed to be in the national best interest, even though there are all sorts of safeguards in play to protect things such as indigenous consultations and rights, and so forth.
Let us be very clear that the New Democrats are becoming more and more irrelevant, for the simple fact that they are not putting Canadians first—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order. There is a little noise coming from all sides of the House.
The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has the floor.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants to develop projects of national interest that serve communities, respect first nations and guarantee a healthy environment for everyone, everywhere. There are ways to achieve that, but this bill offers us no guarantees. It gives one minister all the power to choose the projects.
Once this bill is passed, we could end up with projects that cross through communities and provinces, that increase our greenhouse gas emissions and that pose a danger to the environment.
That is what the NDP fears.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep sadness. As I see it, this debate on Bill C‑5 is a huge tragedy.
While the Liberals say they achieved the mandate in an election, we worked together, the leaders of the opposition parties, previously, with Justin Trudeau. We said we were team Canada, that we would to work together, push back on what Trump wants to do and defend Canada's economic sovereignty. However, grabbing that and claiming that Bill C-5 is a response to how Canadians and all of us in the opposition parties feel about protecting our economy from Trump and pretending that this unprecedented power grab was ever discussed in the election is a sham. We can add an “e” to that: It is a shame.
What we have done here is create the impression, and certainly the Liberals are saying it over and over again, that passing Bill C-5 would be a response to Trump and that it would protect our economy, by railroading the act through, passing it, and then saying that cabinet alone can decide whether a project is in the national interest, and then its approval process would take two years. We do not know what projects are under consideration, but large projects generally take a long time to build or put in place, eight to 10 years, and five years minimum.
There is massive pressure that it needs to be done now, when there is so much more we could do to protect our economy. We could create strategic reserves of Canadian natural resources. We could ensure that Canadian industries and Canadian workers are protected.
However, what the Liberals have done has, honestly, shocked me, because I did not expect this. I really thought we would have a government that understood the need to proclaim Canadian sovereignty and protect our economy but not trample on democracy to do it. I noted that the media said that the bill “sailed through committee”. That is an interesting turn of phrase from our national public broadcaster. I support the CBC, but this kind of thing makes me think of Pierre Poilievre's points. Never mind; I support the CBC. However, the bill did not sail through committee; the bill was forced through committee.
It went through what we call a guillotine process.
We have had a guillotine process at every stage: abbreviated debate at second reading and definitely massively abbreviated opportunity to hear witnesses, so many experts in environmental law and experts in indigenous rights and title holders. All of the aspects of the legislation that are controversial have never been properly aired or discussed.
The process used to pass Bill C‑5 is problematic. It is being rushed to an unprecedented degree, unlike any other time that a bill was forced through Parliament since I first had the great honour of serving as member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I have never seen anything like it.
It is a twofold concern I have at report stage. Yes, we have made some amendments in committee, but they do not touch on the major concerns that people have about the legislation. I do appreciate the Speaker's ruling that part 1 and part 2 will be separated, but how can we have a vote on a bill that would give unprecedented powers to a prime minister and cabinet to choose projects that would be accelerated and expedited to such an extent that they could ignore other pieces of legislation?
There are experts, and I will hold up Jody Wilson-Raybould, our former minister of justice, as an example. She is not just someone who has a sharp legal mind and to whose advice we should be listening; she is also someone who spent her life following in her father's footsteps in protecting indigenous rights and understanding them.
While the preamble to the bill says that free, prior and informed consent is important, the way the law would operate would not allow for that. That is where I am deeply concerned that we are running roughshod over things that we care about in this country, things that we have passed in our Parliament, such as support for the respect for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which, in the bill before us, are now found inconvenient because we want to build things fast.
What things? We will find out later. How fast? Who knows? What laws will we push out of the way? What indigenous rights concerns do we think will take second place?
What happens if they take last place?
What can we do with a bill like this and with a process like the one we are seeing today in the House of Commons?
This is a moment. We have some good amendments before us at report stage to reduce the extent of unaccountability in cabinet's deciding what projects are going to be considered in this expedited process. We have an opportunity. I ask the members of the governing party to consider that this is not an electoral college. We are Parliament. We are a Westminster parliamentary democracy where each member of Parliament is to vote for how they believe their constituents would want to see them vote.
If this was a question, as the government seems to want us to believe, of voting up or down on Canada's economy, there is no question that, of course, Canadian parliamentarians would want our economy to do well. Will this law take us there? There are so many other options, but we have not had any chance to discuss them, nor have we had a chance to adequately review this bill.
I completely agree with what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said in his speech, because this is irreversible.
Once we take the step, we cannot go back without going back to Parliament and changing the law.
These are unprecedented powers. With the decision that they will remain in effect for five years, we have a problem.
We have a real problem of this bill creating not an opportunity to build our economy, but a potential for the expansion of powers of the Prime Minister and cabinet that we have never seen in this country before, with the least amount of debate I have ever seen on a bill.
As everyone now understands, it is an omnibus bill that will have enormous consequences. The decisions may reduce the opportunities for projects that are important to our nation.
If we end up, as often haste makes waste, pulled back into court, we will definitely see challenges. I particularly note the maiden speech of the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a Conservative who said that when projects are built in his territory, the environmental assessments help build better projects, with the time it takes to study, the time it takes to reflect and the engagement of people. Indigenous peoples, Canadians, communities, territories, provinces and local governments need to be engaged to have successful projects.
The factors that are listed are not requirements, and no matter what has been said over and over again in this place about passing this bill to protect our economy, I urge the thoughtful members of the Liberal Party in this place to think twice and vote for the amendments at report stage that improve this act and reduce the chances that it will be abused, not just in the future, but in the very near future.
A section like subclause 6(1) says that in the future, we will just deem that all these decisions have been made in favour of advancing a project. We will not worry about it, because we will decide ahead of time. It will be verdict first, evidence later. This is not the way that Canadian Parliament behaves, reflects or engages in democracy in this country.
I deeply hope that we will see support from government members for the amendments that have been put forward at report stage from the Bloc and the Greens. We hope to see improvements.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the leader of the Green Party has been very consistent over the years. The concern I have, which was really emphasized in the last federal election, is that we need to be able to build a strong, healthy economy, and that means looking at national projects. If it was up to the leader of the Green Party, the studies that would be done would ultimately be endless. We would not even be able to pass legislation.
Does the member see any sense of passing legislation of this nature given the concerns that she raises?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary, with whom I enjoy a good relationship.
This legislation is an abomination, and one that will be a stain on the the reputation of the government and our Prime Minister. As a first effort to lead this country, it is a bad effort, and I am very sad to say that this legislation could have been improved if it had been studied at all, if the voices that had been silenced had been heard.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my Green Party colleague for her diligent work on this bill. Although she does not sit on the committee, I had the opportunity to read all the amendments she put forward, sometimes even late into the night. It is not easy to do the work when it is clear that there will be little support around the table.
I had the opportunity to vote in favour of most of her amendments. I would like her to tell us whether she is proud to be Canadian knowing that her suggestions were rejected by all the parties in the House except for the sovereignists.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois for the rigorous work he did in committee, particularly by moving amendments and focusing his efforts on improving the bill.
I am a sovereignist myself, but for planet Earth. I work tirelessly for our future and the future of our grandchildren, but today I am afraid. It is not yet too late for the Earth or for us here, on this planet, but it is almost too late. Time is of the essence. This bill is a threat to the climate.
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I know the member believes deeply in rail transportation and having affordable transportation for all folks. Would she perhaps grant me that one of the national projects that could be approved is additional rail? It would help all Canadians and is really the reason Canada exists to begin with.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Northumberland—Clarke. We worked together in an informal rail caucus to promote the use of passenger rail. It should be linked with affordable bus transportation. Most Canadians cannot afford to get from place to place on public transit, because it is so limited.
There are many great projects; I grant him that, and I would love to see them move ahead: an east-west, north-south electricity grid and an interlinked passenger rail and bus system. There are many projects in the national interest, but we do not know what they will be, and the factors in the bill are not requirements. We could have a great project that we all want to see go ahead or we could have a nightmare, and right now, there is no way to know the difference. We have to just cross our fingers and hope that the government's plans are good ones, because this, as the old expression goes, is a pig in a poke or a blank cheque. That is what we are passing when the bill is forced through.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
It being 1:50 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 16, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 24. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the questions to be put on Motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 18.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
