Debates of June 20th, 2025

One Canadian Economy Act

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 is a concrete example. It has been four weeks, and we are removing internal trade barriers and strengthening Canada's economy through projects of national interest. We have passed a tax cut for the middle class and made historic investments in defence.

Clearly, our new government, led by our new Prime Minister, is action-oriented and practical. We want to meet Canadians' expectations.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to represent the wonderful people of Long Range Mountains.

I have sat in the House and listened carefully to many of the debates on Bill C-5.

Let me begin by stating clearly that, of course, Conservatives support natural resource development. We always have. For nearly a decade, Conservatives have been pressing the Liberal government to repeal the legislation that has been blocking responsible development in regions right across the country.

We know that Canadians are living through deep economic uncertainty, and they are looking for a serious plan that would give that certainty, but they also want to create competitiveness in the private sector and have a plan that creates jobs, attracts investment and delivers hope for the future. The building Canada act is the government's answer to this moment.

As Conservatives, we agree with building Canada and creating growth in our economy. In fact, I campaigned on it. After close to 50 years, a traditionally Liberal riding flipped. That was because the people of Long Range Mountains recognized that, while we have a province rich in natural resources, we also have some of the worst economic outcomes in the country. They believed that a Conservative government would unlock the opportunities in their communities.

We are thankful that the Liberals have finally recognized that this is extremely important to Canada and Canadians, but unfortunately, this plan would give way too much power to politicians to pick and choose projects. Thankfully, our amendments have decreased some opportunity for Liberal corruption, but despite having the most resources per capita of any country, our economy has had the worst economic growth in the G7, and we have become more dependent on the United States because of Liberal laws that have blocked resource development.

Canada's unemployment rate in May was at its highest level in over eight years, excluding the pandemic. Youth unemployment has skyrocketed, and Canadians cannot afford groceries. Quite simply, we are not meeting our potential, and the legislation before us is supposed to be a part of charting a course for Canada's economy and our economic future. Unfortunately, this legislation does not give the confidence to workers, businesses or investors that we need in this situation.

What is deeply concerning is the method by which the projects of natural interest get to be selected or, thereafter, taken off the list. The legislation would give sweeping power to cabinet to pick winners and losers behind closed doors. Once a project is declared a national interest project and added to schedule 1, all required federal authorizations are automatically rubber-stamped, but the Liberals can thereafter remove them from the list. This is not reforming the current system. It is a power grab, and it is political favouritism.

In addition, the creation of the bill by the Liberals is effectively admitting what Canadians already know, which is that their own laws have paralyzed our ability to build and grow. Rather than fix the broken system and get rid of the laws that prevent us from developing our natural resources, like repealing Bill C-69, the energy cap and the industrial carbon tax, they are creating an exclusive shortcut for a select few based on political convenience. The bill trades fairness and long-term certainty for more centralization and more Liberal control. Canadians deserve better.

Conservatives want to protect Canadians from government corruption while also developing our natural resources and unlocking our immense potential, which means stopping Liberal ministers from circumventing conflict-of-interest laws. Thankfully, Conservatives have added amendments that would remove this ability. However, we should allow the private sector to drive innovation and growth, but the Liberal government insists on picking winners and losers. I ask why this is. Instead, and I say this once again, it could simply repeal the bad policies that block projects. What about all of the major resource and infrastructure projects, which are already stuck in the federal system, that may not be deemed national interest projects? These are all with the growth of the Canadian economy, jobs and investment on the line. Where is the fast track for them?

In Newfoundland and Labrador, there are projects caught on the other side of federal red tape and regulatory paralysis. These projects will grow local economies and provide growth and financial prosperity for rural communities in my riding. Where is the fast track for them?

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have wanted to see our natural gas sector developed for years. Recently, the province released its assessments on natural gas resources, highlighting that it could drive economic growth. However, we know the Liberals have driven away proponents looking to develop this resource, not because it was not viable but because the federal process dragged on so long that they simply just walked away.

On this point, everyone will remember the Liberals' 2022 announcement with the German chancellor, when Canada was asked directly to help Europe reduce its reliance on Russian gas. The chancellor actually visited my riding, and he made it clear that Europe would really like Canada to export more LNG. Our allies were looking to us for a reliable, democratic energy supply. Newfoundland and Labrador could have been a part of this opportunity, but instead of answering that call, the Liberals claimed there was no business case for Canadian LNG.

Under the legislation as it stands right now, all of the same Liberal ministers will get to choose which projects get hand-picked and fast-tracked. Furthermore, in that moment, with a great opportunity for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the government pivoted to hydrogen. Now, several of these projects are trying to launch wind hydrogen operations in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberals picked projects with promises of wind-powered hydrogen exports, new infrastructure and thousands of jobs. However, like so many other Liberal announcements, what was promised with cameras rolling is now wrapped in all kinds of uncertainty.

Recently, it was revealed that Newfoundland and Labrador is owed millions of dollars in unpaid fees from green energy companies, a development that raises serious questions about the financial viability of these projects and whether the multi-billion dollar investments touted by the government will ever materialize. Some owe a collective $13.7 million in fees due in 2024 for the use of Crown land.

Politicians got carried away with announcements and hand-picked projects, but the real tragedy is that Newfoundland and Labrador missed out on an opportunity to provide Canadian LNG because someone in Ottawa thought that they knew best. This is a perfect example of why top-down decision-making does not work. It is not just about energy policy; it is about trust and credibility.

There are lots of projects that the Liberal government has failed to get built. When the Liberals say they are creating a new fast-track process under Bill C-5 for a select few national interest projects, why are the ones we already have across this country stuck in limbo? Why do Liberal cabinet ministers get to decide what is on the list and what is not? Jobs are being lost to delays, while cabinet gives itself the power to pick favourites. Since the government has admitted that its own legislation has created this problem, and it is now trying to bypass it with shortcuts, does it not just make more sense to repeal the legislation?

If this is truly a new government, as the Prime Minister and all his front bench have claimed, then they should prove it to Canadians by repealing Bill C-69, removing the industrial carbon tax and scrapping the emissions cap. These measures would restore certainty and ramp up our economy, including our rural communities, so we can become a self-reliant, sovereign and independent country.

In the meantime, as Conservatives, we intend to hold the government to account on this legislation to be sure Canadians are protected against Liberal corruption.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to a new government, and it is, in fact, a new government administration with a new Prime Minister.

We have seen tangible actions since April 28, just a number of weeks ago. The Prime Minister, working alongside the Liberal caucus, presented legislative initiatives, such as the one that we are debating today, which was on page 1 of the election platform. We are checking it off. It will, in fact, pass. The Prime Minister has already met with the first ministers. He has met with the G7 countries. We have a very proactive Prime Minister, fixated on Canada's economy and making it the strongest in the G7.

My question for the member is, does she not believe in a team Canada approach?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with all the Liberal government touts. I have been hearing, over and again, the Liberal talking points for days.

My point is that this top-down approach of cabinet ministers sitting in ivory towers in Ottawa has proven to not be effective at getting our natural resources developed. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have suffered immensely as a result of this approach by government deciding it knows best. This is the problem: the arrogance and the idea that it knows best and it touts itself. Meanwhile, people are out of work, out of money and out of time. It is time to get to work.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member. She is very critical of the Liberal government. She has a lot to say. She is highly critical of it, so what I do not understand is why she voted in favour of time allocation to pass Bill C‑5 quickly, with no debate, with no experts, with nothing.

She criticizes it, but what she is not saying out loud is that she is happy with Bill C‑5. The Liberals have served up a nice little bill that she herself would probably have liked to introduce.

Why did she agree to pass a bill without debate?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we believe in moving the economy and natural resource development forward. We do not want to be seen as standing in the way. Some development is better than no development, but we would rather see the antidevelopment legislation repealed. That is our suggestion to government.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when I was knocking on doors in Newfoundland and Labrador, it was very common for Canadians to say they were not voting because all politicians are corrupt.

I heard my fellow colleague mention corruption. I wonder if she may see the bill, Bill C-5, as perhaps leading to more corruption.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador. Our ridings share a lot of commonalities, and we hear a lot of the same things at the doors. It is absolutely true what he is saying. People feel that Ottawa is so far away that politicians are completely out of touch, and they just do not trust them.

My concern is that we are continuing in the same vein and giving the Liberals way too much power to make decisions that are not in the best interests of Canadians or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been less than two months since the election.

What parts of this bill will please the people my colleague met while going door to door?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my colleague was listening throughout my speech, but several times I made a plea to the government to repeal the antidevelopment legislation. That is what would make the people of my riding happy.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost one of the last to speak before the final passage of this bill. Numerous questions remain unanswered, which is normal, because there has been limited debate on this bill. We have heard from almost no witnesses and we did not have the opportunity to move many amendments. This bill was tabled in a rush to respond to the tariff crisis. I will say right off the bat that I am not an engineer. I am a social worker and manager; I managed shelter beds. However, I must admit that I fail to understand how this bill responds to the tariff crisis.

It is strange because Mr. Legault, the Premier of Quebec, spoke with the Prime Minister of Canada today and asked him to act quickly to support the sectors that have been affected by the U.S. tariffs for a few weeks now. Those include the aluminum and steel sectors, but also the forestry sector, which is not mentioned much on the other side of the House. The Liberals have trouble saying “forest” and “forestry industry”.

Quebec's premier told the Prime Minister of Canada today that something had to be done for Quebec's regions, where the forestry industry creates good jobs. The sector is really struggling. I do not understand what the bill we are debating will change or improve for people in Quebec's forestry, aluminum and steel sectors.

I think it is an excuse to act quickly, justify the urgency and grab powers that are excessive and akin to those in the Emergencies Act. There is nothing to justify this urgency. There is nothing to justify botching the debate on this bill, which literally transforms the way of doing business and reflects the Liberals' affront to democracy. After a short four weeks of work and after the prorogation of Parliament, when we had not sat since December, the first thing the government did was introduce a bill that we did not even have the opportunity to debate. We cannot get on board with that.

I may be a bit suspicious, but how does it look when a bill is rushed through right before summer, when people are spending more time grilling than watching television? It certainly limits exposure to criticism. Nobody will make the Liberals justify their actions. That goes double for the Conservatives, because they are complicit.

In the last Parliament, our Conservative colleagues called us the “Liberal Bloc”, but nothing beats the Liberal-Conservative alliance. They are thick as thieves. I saw them all smiling and having fun during the vote earlier. Folks on both sides of the House are happy. At last, they can impose their vision, ignore laws and trample on provincial jurisdiction. No obstacles will stand in their way. Gone is the need for accountability, transparency or consultation with indigenous nations, Métis peoples and the territories. This is unprecedented, yet no one seems upset about it.

Only Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party members dared to stand up and cry foul. I am a down-to-earth person. I am all about facts, and I like to do the research, but I have failed to find an answer to the question I asked off the top. I think we are being scammed. They want us to believe there is an emergency, but it does not justify this bill.

I want to point out that the Premier of Quebec said something to the Prime Minister of Canada. I would like to quote him, because these are his words, not an interpretation. Our premier said:

However, I pointed out that projects on our territory must be identified based to our recommendations, and the environmental assessment must be performed by our government.

This morning, I was listening to the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, who did not seem to acknowledge that we were talking about a Quebec environmental assessment, saying it was probably going to be Canada's environmental assessment.

I think it is pretty clear to everyone what is going on.

We disagree with the second part of the bill because these discretionary powers, the ability to govern by decree without consultation, which the government is proposing in collusion with the Conservatives to circumvent who knows how many laws, are beyond the pale. We are talking about laws that were passed because of a need to protect species at risk and our water. These laws serve a purpose. After all, they were passed here, in the House of Commons. They were passed because of abuses, because nature, biodiversity and the environment were not being respected. People went too far. That is why laws were passed.

This bill proposes to suspend them. The government wants to suspend these laws for any project deemed to be in the national interest, but I cannot find a definition of that in the bill. The words “national interest project” appear 23 times, but I cannot find a definition. I cannot find it because it does not exist. It exists only in the mind of the minister who will decide whether a particular project is in the national interest. This is serious.

The people across the floor have the audacity to say that this will boost the economy and build a stronger Canada. One thing is certain. Lawyers are going to make money. This bill will not survive. It will be challenged by civil society groups, by indigenous nations, perhaps even by a province. That is because it makes no sense. It makes no sense, especially considering how it was passed, without democratic debate, without consulting citizens, without consulting scientists. This is serious.

I was elected in 2006. I have been a member of Parliament for almost 12 years. This is the first time I have experienced a situation like this. This is the first time I have seen such disrespect for this democratic institution, the Parliament of Canada. When something like this is done in a hurry and pushed through, I always wonder who benefits. Who stands to gain from this?

I wonder about our Prime Minister's transparency. We know that Brookfield owns railways, a sector that will be impacted by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants, which will be impacted by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns pipelines and even a company that builds and operates nuclear power plants, which will also be impacted by Bill C‑5.

By refusing to disclose his financial situation, is our Prime Minister not leaving himself open to the appearance of a conflict of interest?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had many opportunities to work with my colleague, but I think she is well liked here in Parliament. I think she can appreciate that using a word like “scammed” is a bit of an exaggeration.

I would like her to consider the fact that Canadians asked us to do this. This is the mandate that Canadians sent us here to carry out. We won 44 seats in Quebec because Quebeckers also want us to build an economy that works for all Canadians. I am sure they would not be pleased to hear the word “scammed” being used in the House today.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I highly doubt that Quebeckers voted for the Liberals so they could implement the Conservative agenda. Quebeckers voted for the Liberals because they were afraid of the Conservative leader, Mr. Poilievre, and they were afraid of Trump. They felt safe with the current Prime Minister.

However, they never voted to be handed a bill that will impose a pipeline and other unwanted projects on Quebec, with no prior discussion about choice or environmental assessments.

I highly doubt that is what Quebeckers chose.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, I think it goes without saying that we do not share the same opinion on this issue.

We understand the Bloc Québécois does not want projects to be fast-tracked, particularly projects allowing for a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, liquefied natural gas projects and pipelines.

There is one thing, however, on which I agree with my colleague, and that is the lack of transparency by the Prime Minister. She talked about it at the end of her speech. It is rather troubling. We agreed on some amendments with the Bloc Québécois to ensure the government would have to comply with ethics laws.

I would like my colleague to say a few words herself about this lack of transparency and the current Prime Minister's many conflicts of interest.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that would deserve a long answer, but I would like to tell my colleague that we agreed on a few important amendments: removing the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Indian Act so that they are excluded from Bill C‑5. However, without the participation of the Bloc Québécois or the NDP, with the support of these Conservative amendments, this was not part of the original bill.

What worries me, and I will say this sincerely, is that there was an amendment that was rejected by both sides, the Conservatives and the Liberals. It was the one that made it clear that provinces and indigenous nations had to be consulted before projects were approved. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted against that. I do not call that being in agreement.

If I may, we agree on the first part of the bill. We are pleased that it was split, because there are benefits, in part 1, to eliminating interprovincial barriers, especially for dairy farmers and slaughterhouses.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague. She said it; she is a pragmatist.

Someone said earlier that Quebeckers had voted for a Liberal government. I would like to hear her opinion on the fact that Quebeckers may have voted against themselves. Proposed section 7 states, “Before recommending that an order be made...the Minister must consult”, if he considers it appropriate, with indigenous peoples and the provinces and territories, for example.

The minister will consult if he thinks it is worthwhile. In my opinion, that is not respecting the provinces.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks that is what Quebeckers voted for.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously not.

If I do so say myself, Quebeckers will never agree to a pipeline running through their territory without first being consulted and without an assessment by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. Not a chance.

I will say quite frankly that all members of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party will fight, to the death, any project of that nature.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, over the last short while, because, of course, we were given very little time, I have expressed very serious concerns about Bill C-5 as it relates to the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples, the protection of our environment, and workers' rights. I would like to thank my very brilliant colleague, the member for Vancouver East, for helping us split the bill to ensure that the Liberals and the Conservatives cannot hide behind interprovincial trade barriers to violate indigenous rights and accelerate the climate emergency.

In spite of the amendments, my concerns remain. The building Canada act constitutes a clear breach and violation of indigenous rights under the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Yesterday, in his press conference, the Prime Minister insisted that indigenous peoples are “at the heart” of Bill C-5. In a way, he is correct. The violation of the rights of indigenous peoples is indeed at the heart of this bill, and indigenous leaders who travelled to the Hill this week have confirmed this loud and clear.

In response to questions both at committee and in the House, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations failed repeatedly to provide clear answers to the serious concerns raised by indigenous people and leaders. Bill C-5 would have serious and far-reaching implications, as it would allow ministers and the Governor in Council to determine what indigenous rights “may be adversely affected” or what will “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”. However, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations seems content to simply state that section 35 rights of the Constitution Act of 1982 are mentioned in certain provisions of the bill, or that her government will establish a $40-million advisory circle for what she characterized as “guidance”.

As legislators, we are guided by the rule of law. We are guided by the Constitution and treaties, and for the last 150 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has been providing clear guidance with respect to aboriginal rights and treaty rights.

Furthermore, Bill C-15 requires that the government must ensure that all laws of this Parliament are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 19 of UNDRIP reads, “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples...in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

I asked the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations at committee if this obligation was respected. Her response was no. Why? It is because Bill C-5 was, in her words, an “accelerated” process. The minister likes to point out that section 35 rights are mentioned in Bill C-5 and will be upheld, but always remains unconvincingly vague about how her government will achieve that. Allow me to provide just one example around modern land claims agreements.

Modern land claims agreements, considered as treaties under subsection 35(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982, contain distinct environmental and review processes in which the indigenous signatories have a direct involvement and participation in decision-making and appointments. These processes would be replaced by ministers and cabinet under Bill C-5. That constitutes a substantial amendment to these treaties and agreements. This normally and legally requires the consent of indigenous signatories. Consent has not been obtained from indigenous peoples to make these substantial changes.

The grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, in his correspondence with the government, correctly reminds us that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is a modern treaty within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution. As such, it has a constitutional status that prevails over any inconsistent legislation. Consequently, Grand Chief Wapachee has specifically proposed the following, and I quote: That the proposed building Canada act expressly provide that it shall not apply to any project to be carried out, in whole or in part, in the territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

This is just one example of many that compels indigenous leaders to strongly believe that Bill C-5 has the very real potential to lead us all to the courts, with the equally real risk of further delays and job losses. We are not building a strong economy. We are building cases for the Supreme Court of Canada. It is the kind of legislative behaviour that has resulted in the federal government spending between $500 million and $1 billion annually fighting indigenous peoples' rights and status in courts.

Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler claimed, “If you pass this Bill C-5 it will be a long hot summer.... We will not sit idly by and watch any government whether it's Ontario or Canada...come to our territory and take...whatever they want because it is ours.”

It is not just the rights of indigenous peoples that are being violated. The building Canada act risks eroding workers' rights, giving the minister the ability to bypass critical legislation protecting workers and eroding standards surrounding health and safety. Even beyond these glaring attacks on workers, Bill C-5 would also be a job killer since the government failed to undertake the necessary consultations and fulfill its constitutional obligations, meaning the legislation would inevitably get tied up in the courts, stalling any sort of economic growth.

Beyond these issues, countless environmental organizations have warned that Bill C-5 would accelerate the climate emergency, placing countless people across Canada at risk. In fact, one in four Canadians is suffering the adverse health impacts resulting from the climate emergency. Ecojustice says the bill gives “sweeping power for the Prime Minister and his cabinet to exempt major projects from Canada’s most important federal health, safety, and environmental laws” and that it encourages “backroom politicking and closed-door negotiating with powerful corporations.”

Right now, half our country is literally on fire. The health of one in four Canadians is being impacted by extreme weather events, and these events will only get worse, as we know. Weakening environmental standards will only make this worse in the future. Nobody voted for an undemocratic concentration of power, violations of indigenous peoples' constitutional rights, environmental degradation or attacks on workers.

The Liberals, supported by the Conservatives, are holding our country hostage to prioritize big corporations' interest over everything else. We urge the government to slow down, to reflect and to not let the bill go through in its current form. We urge the government to honour its obligation to obtain free, prior and informed consent and to significantly amend the bill to uphold constitutional obligations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the approach that the NDP has chosen to take on Bill C-5. The member and I both represent Winnipeg ridings. Both of us understand what Canadians, and Winnipeggers in particular, want to see. They are very much concerned about the economy. They are concerned about jobs. They like the aspect of having one Canada economy.

We have Premier Wab Kinew, who understands that, has been working with other provincial jurisdictions and participated in the first minister's conference that was hosted by the Prime Minister. There is a great team approach, yet we have the NDP playing around. It is just becoming more and more isolated and irrelevant to the whole debate.

Why does the member not recognize what the people of Winnipeg, and Canada, said during the last election? They want a one Canada economy.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank goodness for the member for Vancouver East for splitting the bill. The NDP does support removing interprovincial trade barriers and will be voting in favour of that part of the bill.

What we will not vote in favour of is violating constitutional rights, violating the section 35 rights of indigenous people, violating section 35(3) constitutional obligations, violating UNDRIP, violating environmental standards and violating the health and safety of workers. We will be proudly voting against this nation-building scheme that is going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent and heartfelt speech. We hope that it will open the minds of some members in the House.

I would like her to comment on the following. Does she think that this bill is consistent with the reconciliation movement that we have been pursuing with indigenous peoples for several years now? Does it fit in with that, or does it take us in a completely different direction?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just asked me a question. He represented, up until recently, a part of Winnipeg with the highest number of kids in care. Indigenous people are very supportive of building a strong economy. Indigenous leaders, in fact, have said we are not against it. What we are against is the violation of our constitutionally enshrined rights.

This is going to put us decades backwards. Any strides we have made in terms of reconciliation, we are going to lose if the Liberals and the Conservatives continue to team up and pass this bill. What is it going to look like? I was around during Idle No More. This is going to be Idle No More 2.0 because we will not sit idly by while our rights are being violated.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ever-diligent and vociferous attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and holding the government to account. The government, and particularly the member for Winnipeg North, seems to claim that under this bill, part 2 of the bill, it actually respects indigenous rights through its consultation provisions. The Liberals seem to be oblivious about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the consultation requirements stipulated in that.

I wonder if the member can enlighten, particularly, the member for Winnipeg North.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite colonial with the member for Winnipeg North, particularly because indigenous peoples and nations from across this country have been very clear that the government has not fulfilled its duty of free, prior and informed consent. Organizations including AFN, ITK, NAN and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs have come forward and called out the government. They have not received—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have a point of order from the member for London West.