Debates of Oct. 6th, 2026

Youth Criminal Justice Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say to my friend that he was very inspirational in the manner he presented the debate, not only today but even at second reading. He has been exceptionally respectful and very reflective of what has taken place and of the motivation that is there. It is appropriate to share it with his wife because of the impact it has on the family unit. One can have a great deal of sympathy for it. It is another thing to have empathy when living through it. I do applaud him, as I indicated in my question, for having the courage to share this in such a public way. It is a wonderful tribute to David, who had a wonderful life. I wanted to say that to my friend at the outset.

I talk about the principle of the legislation because I think there is a great deal of sympathy from a vast majority of people when we talk about young people. We all recognize that being a young person today can be a challenge. It is a much different society we live in today and over the last decade than we had when I was growing up, whether regarding the availability of drugs, addictions issues or the Internet and the impact it is having on individuals and socializing. There are a great deal of bad characters in society; there always have been, but think of the degree to which they have become accessible. This is not a partisan issue. We need to have initiatives like this that give us a bit of a wake-up call as a collective of parliamentarians at both the federal level and the provincial level.

One of the presenters commented on resources. We can pass wonderful laws, but if we do not have the resources and the will at different levels, we will not be anywhere near as successful as we could potentially be. I look to the provinces, because many of the courts, for example, are provincial courts. The role that law enforcement officers play is absolutely critical. There are the communities and stakeholders. Often, many of the stakeholders have outreach programs that try to keep in touch with the individuals who are feeling challenged with a wide spectrum of addictions. It is very real and very tangible. I suspect the bill will pass, hopefully very quickly out of the Senate chamber, because it is a good thing for the Parliament of Canada, both houses, to send this very strong message in a relatively short period of time through a strong, powerful, personal story and articulation on an issue that can have a positive outcome for not hundreds but thousands of young people.

If we were to canvass parents as a whole, we would hear that every parent thinks about the raising of their child and the direction they are going to go in. We all hope they will make good decisions. Quite often, unfortunately, it is others who get involved in a certain life who get someone going in the wrong direction, or they get too deep, as the member's daughter referred to. The deeper they get, the more difficult the challenge is.

My experience comes in two forms. One is as a concerned parent and the other is because of a role I played when I was in the Manitoba legislature. There are a lot of hard, tough feelings with regard to young people who fall on the wrong side.

What I did was get engaged with a youth justice committee. It provided a young person who made a mistake with the opportunity to go before a quasi-judicial group, a justice committee, where we would sit, listen and then come up with a disposition. If that young person fulfilled the disposition, there was no need for them to go to court and there was no criminal record, so if they wanted to go down to the States, for example, they could do that. It gave that young person a chance.

When I look at what the member is proposing in Bill C-231, I see a lot of similarities. When I reflect on the years I spent on that justice committee, I know there is a great deal of support for a system that recognizes that at times we need a discretionary authority to do something good by giving someone a break. Providing youth justice courts, in whatever form they might be, and that leadership coming from the Parliament of Canada I believe sends a very powerful message. Hopefully we will see provincial legislatures look at what has been happening. I suspect provincial parliamentarians will take an interest. My daughter is an MLA. I will pass the idea of what is being talked about this evening on to her, and I suspect there will be other parliamentarians at the provincial level.

When we look at the amendment brought forward that factors in mental health issues, we need to put more supports into the issue of mental health and well-being. We need to see more resources, and outcomes too, I must say, that deal with the issue of addictions. We can think of the damage it causes to the individual versus the family unit or the community from a social perspective. There is also a significant economic cost. I believe all of this makes a very strong argument that governments and stakeholders need to do a better job. When we are provided the opportunity through, in this case, our court system, I think we should take advantage of that. I hope that the judges, prosecutors and even defence lawyers out there will listen to the type of support the member opposite has generated.

As the member pointed out, no one voted against the legislation. Three hundred-plus members of Parliament voted in favour of it. Some of those who did not vote in favour of it approached the member opposite. It then went to the committee stage, where, because of the manner in which it is being presented, the support being brought forward and the co-operation within the department, it was ultimately made into better legislation, as the member himself indicated, by incorporating mental health.

First and foremost, I thank the member, his wife and his daughter for their contributions to making our communities better by bringing forward the legislation. I would also give thanks to anyone who was involved in making it to this stage. I look forward to it getting royal assent, before Christmas I trust.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am probably going to repeat some of the things I said in the spring. The reality of legislative life is that we come back to the same bill, work on it and approve it again.

As my colleague said earlier, I already spoke to this bill in committee, as well as in the House at second reading. I will now speak to it at third reading. I look forward to passing it. I think we all want it to be passed quickly, but David deserves for us to pass it quickly.

Drug addictions are not a legal issue. These are medical issues, especially when it comes to our teenagers. Of course, drug addictions are not fun. We would not wish for anyone to have to deal with addictions of this nature, neither colleagues of the same age or the same generation, nor our parents or children. Drug use is bad. Drug trafficking must be stopped.

It is vital to combat it in every way possible. This is being done. There are always attempts to balance more restrictive measures with preventative, corrective and rehabilitative measures. It is not always easy. Colleagues from different parties often have heated arguments and fierce debates on these issues.

When it comes to our teenagers, I am pleased to see that we are all on the same page, even members from other parties who generally tend to disagree with our point of view. As members know, rehabilitation is part of the Bloc Québécois's DNA. We are perhaps a little too naive. Likely so. Perhaps we would be better off being less naive. It all depends on one's point of view, but we believe in rehabilitation.

The society that we want to build, the one that we want to live in and that we want our children to live in, is a caring society. We want it to be a society that we will be happy to live in and that will accept us despite our shortcomings, our mistakes, our faults and our flaws, a society that will help us to get back on the straight and narrow, help us to see the light and help us to better understand what is best for us and for the rest of society. The Bloc Québécois adopted this way of thinking and this way of doing things a long time ago, when the party was founded and possibly even well before that. I cannot speak for members of other parliaments, but I would be surprised if Quebec thought differently. I believe that, historically, in Quebec, we have always favoured rehabilitation over punishment.

There must be punishment. I am not saying that we do not need any. We must take firm action. We need to be fair, equitable and rigorous in how we treat our young people in particular. They need limits. They need guidelines to determine what is right and wrong. Often, even sometimes as parents, we are amazed at the impact or influence we can have on them because they do not show us and they will not tell us. However, in the long term, we find out that they have learned something from what we have been able to tell them in the past, and that is great.

Yes, we believe in interventions, including those of a criminal nature, but above all, we believe in rehabilitation. We need to help people understand, those around us who have strayed—I do not like to use the expression “strayed” because I myself tend to stray from time to time—or those who have bent the societal rules that we have set for ourselves and who try to do things differently. We need to help them see things clearly.

Addiction is a serious problem that must be addressed, but when it comes to teenagers in particular, we need to focus on rehabilitation and recovery. It really needs to be viewed as a dependence issue, a health problem, rather than a criminal problem.

I was listening to my colleague on the government side earlier, and I agreed with him. I was even pleased to hear him say the following. I will quote him word for word, because I wrote it down.

The words I wrote down are these: “to give someone a break.”

However, I think he should have said:

“to give society a break.” It is not just “someone”.

These young folks who have strayed from the straight and narrow, who have taken drugs, who have struggled with addiction, and who are having a hard time turning things around would possibly, if not probably, make valuable contributions to society under different circumstances. Our society needs them. We need people like David today. He could have become an incredible social worker, maybe a lawyer or a member of Parliament. Who knows? He could have made a contribution to our society. We need David and other young people in the same situation.

When someone gets a second chance, society as a whole gets a second chance. Society can then benefit from the important contributions these young folks can make. To me, that is important. It is our duty as parliamentarians to fix what needs to be fixed, but to do so in the right way, by investing in our future.

Earlier, I asked my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière a question. I asked him if it were possible, if we could imagine a scenario where all members of the House, regardless of their party, could also agree, under different circumstances, on meaningful bills. These bills might not be perfect, and we might want to make some changes to them, but we could still agree to pass them quickly. I am not talking about rushing to adopt them by saying that it is in the national interest and that they will take effect as early as next week. That is a different matter. We will discuss that another time. Rather, I am talking about reaching an agreement to adopt them in a reasonable manner.

In my opinion, there are too many bills that get carried over from one Parliament to the next. It is counterproductive. The amount of money, time and effort that is needlessly invested in bills that never come to fruition is unbelievable, and I would say incalculable. I have not even tried to calculate it. It disappoints me. I am disappointed all the time.

As for David's bill, which we are considering today, it gives me confidence in the humanity of my colleagues in this House, and that is something I truly appreciate. I want to say this not only to our colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, but to all members of the House: When a bill is worthwhile, even if it is not perfect, can we make a greater effort to discuss it before it reaches committee and comes to a vote? Can we work together to find ways to move it forward? Can we ensure that when a bill is introduced, it is passed, if not within a few months, then at least within a year? That is my hope, and though it may be somewhat naive, I hope my colleagues will allow me the occasional moment of naivety. I would love to see bills like this advance more quickly.

Let me close by returning to what I said earlier about David's law. I will share what I have learned from all this and from the handful of years I have spent on this earth. I do not consider myself old; I often say that no one is truly old until they reach three digits. Even so, I have gained a bit of life experience. I would say that our young people need love, not prison bars.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start today by asking everyone in this room to think of a teenager in their life. It could be their son, daughter, grandchild, niece, nephew or even a neighbour. Imagine that teenager is going through a rough patch. They got caught up in substance abuse or addiction, which is something that happens in all our communities day in and day out. Now imagine that the rough patch leads them to make a mistake. They commit a petty crime or make a poor decision that brings them into contact with our justice system.

What do members want to happen to the teenager in that moment? Do they want them to be locked away in a cell, surrounded by influence, where their addiction could continue, or do they want them to recover, to get into counselling and get the help they need to turn their life around? I think most of us would choose care. We would choose to give that young person a second chance at a different life, which is a choice that brings us here today to Bill C-231.

Bill C-231 is about updating the laws we have around youth justice to focus on health, recovery and healing. The first big change it would bring is to create a path to recovery for a young person who broke the law, instead of sending them straight to jail. It would give them that second chance to get clean, get healthy and rebuild their life before a continued life of addiction truly takes hold.

I think that second chance is something we can all understand. None of us would ever want our worst decision at 17 years old to dictate the rest of our life. We understand that a young person can change, because we have seen it. We have seen young people graduate, get jobs, rebuild relationships with their families and become leaders in their community. The question is whether our justice system is going to help them make that possible or whether it will make that journey even harder.

We all know that recovery is not a straight line. It is a climb. Sometimes we stumble, and that is okay, as long as we get ourselves back up again. This bill would make sure that if a young person stumbles on their first try, the judge cannot throw them back into prison for failing treatment. Why is this important? It is because fear cannot shut down recovery. If a teenager thinks that admitting they have slipped up will land them in jail, they will likely hide their struggles, lie to those around them or even run away. By removing that threat of time in prison, we would give them a safe environment to keep trying until recovery sticks.

To understand why this change is necessary, we have to take a look at how our system works today. For a long time, our system has operated like a hammer: If a person breaks a rule, the hammer comes down. However, addiction is not something we can hammer away. We cannot punish trauma, or dependence on a substance, out of a human being.

When we lock up a young person who is addicted to drugs or alcohol, two things usually happen. First, they will not get access to recovery and the care they need to beat the addiction. Second, they are isolated from their family. We remove them from their school or learning program and connect them with deeper criminal behaviours. When they eventually get released, often as young adults, their addiction is still there, but now they have lost their support system, or it is broken, and their future opportunities are limited.

Creating a cycle where people reoffend time after time does not make our community safer. This is where I believe we need to think beyond punishment with respect to addiction. We need to start thinking about outcomes, and at the end of the day, the goal in our justice system should not be simply to punish someone but to create a path to breaking cycles and building a different life.

We have to ask ourselves what a true, safe community looks like. Is the neighbourhood safer when a young person is locked away for six months, only to come back angrier, more disconnected and still addicted, or is the neighbourhood safer when that same teenager is guided through healing and education, and can build a stable life and become a happy, healed, productive neighbour?

Bill C-231 would step into that cycle and break it at the beginning. It recognizes that teenagers' brains are still developing. Their decision-making skills are still being formed. Teenagers are wired to make mistakes, test boundaries and sometimes fall into bad situations, but their brains are remarkably adaptable. At that age, with the right structure, the right rehabilitation plan and proper guidance, a young person can turn their entire life around before adulthood.

This is why early intervention is so incredibly important. The earlier we can interrupt addiction, the earlier we can reconnect young people with their family, with education and with their community. This is not about letting people off the hook or ignoring accountability. Recovery is hard work. One has to show up every day, take accountability for one's past and do the heavy emotional lifting it takes to heal and become truly addiction-free. This is real accountability. It requires far more effort and leads to far better results than just sitting in a jail cell.

Think about what this means for families. When a young person falls into addiction, it is not their personal crisis. It pulls in their entire family. Parents spend sleepless nights worrying about their child, whether they will come home and whether they are still alive. They look for treatment beds, navigate confusing and expensive health care systems and try desperately to keep their children safe. When legal trouble hits, many parents feel isolated, as if they have hit a dead end. They fear that the court will take their child away and lock them up, leaving the underlying issue untreated.

Bill C-231 offers families hope. It would turn the feeling of being stuck into a doorway for help. It would allow everyone to work together to guide our young people back on the right track. It says to parents that their child has made a mistake but that we are going to focus on getting them well so they can rebuild their future. That future matters.

If we help even one young person recover, we are helping not only that individual but also their parents, their siblings, their classmates, their future co-workers and even the communities that they will eventually be a part of. Every young person we help get back on their feet is one more person who has the opportunity to contribute instead of being trapped in a cycle of addiction and the justice system.

To wrap things up, I want to leave us with one simple thought. A society should not be judged by how strictly it punishes its young people when they fail. It should be judged by how effectively we help them stand back up. Bill C-231 is practical, compassionate and a necessary update to our youth justice system. It would choose rehabilitation, and, most importantly, it would give young people who have lost their way a realistic path toward recovery.

We all want safer communities. We all want our young people to grow up healthy and educated and to have a wonderful life that they build on their own. Bill C-231 would give us the ability to make that a reality. In the name, memory and honour of David, I look forward to the bill's passing the final stage.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at the third reading to speak in support of the private member's bill, Bill C-231, a bill that has benefited from thoughtful consideration and study at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I am proud to speak in support of Bill C-231, which proposes specific amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, YCJA.

Bill C-231 proposes to amend the YCJA to help youth with substance use disorders who come in contact with the criminal justice system to access treatment programs that will assist them in meaningfully rehabilitating and reintegrating into their community. More specifically, the bill proposes to clarify the instances when a young person in contact with the youth criminal justice system can be referred or ordered to participate in a treatment program and to enable, in certain cases, a youth justice court to defer sentencing to allow the young person to participate in a treatment program. In addition, the bill proposes to amend the YCJA to enable the youth justice court to include, in certain orders, the condition of attending a treatment program.

The objectives of this bill align well with the objectives of the YCJA and the overall youth criminal justice system. The preamble to the YCJA calls on communities, families, parents and others concerned with the development of young persons to be active participants in the youth criminal justice system. The YCJA invites their involvement to prevent youth crime by addressing its underlying causes, to respond to the needs of young persons, and to provide guidance and support to those at risk of committing crimes.

Bill C-231 enhances the YCJA's multipronged approach to problematic substance use and seeks to improve outcomes for young people with substance use disorders who come in contact with the criminal justice system.

At second reading of the bill, some members shared personal stories, as well as stories from constituents in their ridings. These stories remind us that problematic substance use and mental health issues affect all of us, whether directly or directly.

These heartfelt and informative discussions continued during the committee's study of Bill C-231. I want to thank committee members for their interest and active participation during the study of Bill C-231. Their candid and at times personal interventions helped nourish the committee's discussions regarding potential amendments. I want to thank the witnesses who came forward and shared touching stories as well as insightful views on topics related to problematic substance use.

We had the privilege to hear from family members of the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, who tragically lost his son, David last year. We heard from Caroline Levesque, who is David's mother and an early childhood educator, and Justine Berthold, who is David's younger sister and a nurse.

During their testimony, they mentioned that too often the youth criminal justice system focuses on offences and punishments without looking into the underlying cause of a young person's offending behaviour. They spoke about the importance for the youth criminal justice system of having the right tools and said that enabling decision-makers to use these tools at the right time would improve the YCJA's ability to support meaningful rehabilitation and reintegration.

The committee also heard from Angy Riendeau, a criminologist who highlighted the importance of early interventions when it came to preventing and addressing the risk factors that can eventually lead to persistent criminality in adulthood. She noted that the amendments in Bill C-231 would add to the intervention mechanisms already available under the YCJA to better help young people access treatment, specialized assessments, care and appropriate resources in a timely manner.

The amendments that were made during the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-231 are consistent with the views that were shared during the witness testimonies. All the amendments proposed were adopted unanimously by committee members. This showcases the close co-operation that this bill has cultivated among members.

To further the bill's objective of improving the YCJA's public health approaches to problematic substance use, many of the amendments that were made to Bill C-231 at committee relate to the language used in the bill.

For example, the term “addiction” was replaced by “problematic substance use” to align with the more modern, less stigmatizing language used in the Controlled Drug and Substances Act. Certain clauses of the bill were also amended to refer to problematic substance use treatment programs or any other treatment programs. This is to avoid unintended interpretations that may restrict access to other types of treatment programs, including programs focused on mental health or on behaviour modification and skills development.

This broader terminology would also allow the YCJA to remain flexible and relevant, should types of treatment available to young people evolve over time.

Furthermore, multiple amendments were made to Bill C-231 at committee, seeking to clarify, and at times broaden, the instances where decision-makers under the YCJA can refer or order youth to participate in a treatment program. For example, a coordinating amendment was added to ensure that prosecutors, in addition to police officers, must consider whether it would be appropriate to refer a young person to a problematic substance use treatment program before starting or continuing judicial proceedings against the young person.

Moreover, amendments were made to clarify the situations when attendance at a problematic substance use treatment program or any other treatment program may be ordered as a sentence or as a condition to an order. For example, an amendment was made to explicitly mention that attendance at such treatment programs can be ordered as a condition of probation and continual supervision.

These amendments would ensure greater consistency in the YCJA sentencing framework when it comes to problematic substance use, especially in the context of the Canada overdose crisis and the toxic illegal drug supply. The federal government is committed to a comprehensive public health and safety approach that focuses on connecting people to vital services, destigmatization and supporting prevention, treatment and recovery.

In closing, I believe significant improvements were made to Bill C-231 during its clause-by-clause study and that it is ready for passing in the chamber. I urge all members to support it at third reading.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member will have about two and a half minutes left, if she so chooses, the next time the House considers this matter.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Building Canada Strong Act

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join the debate this evening on the building Canada strong act because Canada, at this moment, needs to build. In the interest of my limited time, I am only going to be talking about one of the three parts in this bill: build Canada now.

We need clean energy and transmission. We need critical minerals. We need expanded port, rail and trade corridors. We need the infrastructure that will connect Canadian products to new markets and make our economy more resilient. However, there is an important question we need to ask: Can we build faster without lowering the bar? I believe the answer is yes. I believe the key is to build a better, more coordinated system.

Today, projects can involve multiple federal processes, sometimes requiring similar information, with assessments, consultations and permitting decisions occurring at different stages. That creates uncertainty. It can delay investment, increase costs and make it harder for Canada to compete. Duplicative processes do not necessarily lead to better environmental outcomes.

Bill C-39 is designed to address that problem by coordinating federal assessment, permitting and consultation processes so they can happen together rather than one after another. We should be finding speed by doing the necessary work at the same time, not by making the same work happen twice. That, in my view, is the most important principle behind this legislation.

The same is true for how it approaches indigenous consultation. This bill would establish a more coordinated federal approach to consultation through a Crown consultation hub. Having worked with first nations, I know how some smaller first nations with more limited capacity can be overwhelmed by the number of referrals from government and the private sector.

Indigenous communities should be able to engage with the federal government through a coordinated process, rather than having to navigate multiple departments and overlapping requests about the same project. That is a meaningful opportunity to make the system work better. However, getting the coordination right would depend on getting the details of this overall bill right as well.

One of the issues I want to highlight is the meaning of a “comprehensive application”. That is important because the one-year timeline for project reviews and decisions under this act would begin once the proponent submits the comprehensive application and the required studies and information. That is important because the one-year period would be intended to cover the federal government's assessment, consultation, consideration of impacts and mitigation, and final decision-making.

If we are going to make that timeline meaningful, proponents and communities need clarity about what is required before this clock starts. If the threshold is too low, the clock begins before the science is ready. Regulators would not have all the information they need. They would be playing catch-up. First nations and the public may lose confidence in the system. If it is vague or impossibly high, years of delay may simply move to the period before the clock begins. The principle here is that predictability should come from clarity about what is required, not on cutting corners on what is required.

The second issue I would like to bring up is on public participation. This bill is intended to coordinate federal processes, but coordination also means that more information may be presented to communities at the same time. That can be challenging because large proponents can have teams of consultants, scientists, engineers and lawyers, while smaller communities, local organizations and first nations may not have that same capacity.

If we want a more efficient process, we also need to make sure that people have a fair opportunity to participate in it. That could mean making sure that we have adequate participant funding, access to technical expertise, clear and accessible information, properly staffed federal review teams, and meaningful opportunities for public and first nations input at the points where that input can inform decisions. A faster process should be a more coordinated process, not a process where the people affected would have less ability to participate.

The third issue I would like to bring up is on preparatory work. This bill would allow the environment minister to permit some preparatory work on a project before a decision on that project has been rendered, where it is found to be in the public interest. There is a very good practical reason to allow certain work to proceed while a broader assessment is under way. Surveys, geotechnical investigations, archaeological work and other preparatory activities can provide information that helps a project move through the review process. However, Parliament should be clear on what work can and cannot be done. It should not be irreversible, it should not prejudge the final decision or replace the assessment itself, and it should continue to respect indigenous consultation and environmental requirements.

Another important issue to consider is the authority to change project conditions where the minister determines that doing so is in the public interest. This is another new power that is proposed by this bill.

There are very legitimate reasons why conditions may need to evolve over the life of a project. Technology changes, project design changes, better mitigation becomes available or additional consultation identifies a better approach to a project. There is value in having that appropriate flexibility, but that flexibility should also come with transparency. I believe Parliament should look carefully at how that discretion is exercised so we understand the criteria that are going to be looked at and make sure that we have notice when changes are going to be proposed and have transparency about those reasons for those changes. If the government is going to be given this new power to change legally binding conditions, Canadians should have the transparency to understand why those changes are being made.

We should also look carefully at economic feasibility, because it is reasonable to ask whether a condition can actually be implemented. In fact, this is already common practice in project reviews, but there is an important distinction between asking how an environmental objective can best be achieved and deciding that the objective is too costly. The economic feasibility should help determine how an environmental obligation is achieved. It should not become a substitute for achieving the environmental outcome. That distinction matters, because building faster and protecting the environment are not competing objectives. They can and should reinforce each other.

One of the other areas I see significant opportunity in is regional assessments. Too often, project decisions are considered after a site has already been selected and significant investment has already been made. Regional assessments allow us to take a step back and ask some of the bigger questions, such as where development makes the most sense, where the most sensitive ecosystems are, what the cumulative impacts of multiple projects are, what infrastructure a region needs and what environmental limits need to be respected. This gives us a chance to think about development at the scale of the ecosystem, rather than looking at small projects in isolation. This helps us make better decisions about where and how development makes sense in the first place, which makes good environmental policy and good investment policy.

Finally, I want to address fish habitat compensation and third party habitat banking, because I see considerable potential in this approach. A mining company, a road builder or a port authority is not necessarily the organization that is best equipped to design and deliver habitat restoration. Specialized conservation organizations, indigenous organizations and restoration providers may be able to undertake larger and more ecologically coherent restoration projects. Having a system of third party habitat credits would allow that work to happen strategically in advance and get proponents better predictability when compensation is required.

We should also recognize an important ecological reality. Restoring habitat is not simply a matter of replacing one hectare with another. Ecosystems are complex, and there is uncertainty in how successfully restored habitat will function over time. This is why compensation should always remain at the end of the mitigation hierarchy. We should avoid impacts first, minimize them where they cannot be avoided, restore where possible and compensate for residual impacts that remain. Where that compensation is required, we should aim for outcomes that are genuinely nature-positive.

Overall, I support the direction of this legislation, because Canada needs to demonstrate that we can build, and we need a federal approval system that gives investors, communities and indigenous peoples greater confidence about how those decisions will be made. The speed should come from better coordination, better planning and better execution. It should come from federal processes happening together rather than one after another, from clear information requirements and from properly resourced consultation and participation. It should come from making decisions on time when the evidence is ready.

Given that the powers in this bill would be permanent, it is important that where new flexibility or discretion is created, Parliament instills clear and transparent processes. This means getting the definition of comprehensive application right, ensuring that public and indigenous participation remains meaningful, being clear about what preparatory work is, using ministerial discretion transparently, applying economic feasibility appropriately, using regional assessments to understand both development opportunities and ecological limits and ensuring that habitat compensation produces the strongest ecological outcomes possible.

Canada should not have to choose between building quickly and building responsibly. We can do both. We can have a project review system that is faster because it is better organized, we can give investors greater certainty without sacrificing rigorous assessment and we can build the infrastructure Canada needs while maintaining the environmental protections and public confidence the projects depend on.

This is the opportunity before us with Bill C-39.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a very comprehensive speech. It actually related to everything I have learned over the last 20 years.

I will not say “rights and title” but “indigenous interests”. In relation to indigenous interests, the Prime Minister said the content of UNDRIP would not be affected by a pipeline going to the Pacific coast. However, with the original Trans Mountain pipeline, there were first nations that did not give their consent to the pipeline, yet the project was still approved.

Are we expecting something similar with the Pacific link pipeline as proposed?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we saw with the Trans Mountain pipeline was the original approval of the pipeline being challenged in court and overturned for the consultations' not meeting the standard of section 35. What this means in practice is that where a project is going to impact a proven or claimed aboriginal right, there needs to be consultation or accommodation based on the level of impact. That is what the law states and that is what would be appropriate for any other project.

It is very important. Some of the changes made here would facilitate consultation, happening both before a project site is chosen and throughout the process, through the new Crown consultation hub. This is critically important. It is not something we can legislate away. This is a constitutional obligation that we have toward first nations. The processes that have been proposed today would very much help produce a better process for that.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the importance of building projects faster. Maybe he could expand a bit on the one-year review timeline that the government intends to implement in Bill C-39. What would that mean for the communities and businesses that are waiting for the implementation and would be able to have these investments in their communities?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this one-year review timeline is critically important. We know we need to build fast and we need to build at scale.

I want to give an example of a project in my riding that faced some significant delays. There is a big housing development where just the process of getting the habitat compensation project approved ended up taking three years. This is holding up getting thousands of new homes built. Rather than having to go through a multi-year process for habitat restoration work, this would allow for the purchasing of credits in a bigger habitat compensation project that could make a much bigger difference. This is instead of having to wait years for each individual project.

This is one of the many efficiencies that would be created by this legislation that are both good for the environment and good for getting meaningful projects built in all of our communities.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was very vocal not too long ago about imposing an oil and gas cap on Canada. I wonder if he still supports that and if he supports the planned pipeline through B.C. to the B.C. coast.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this government has made a commitment to make Canada a clean and conventional energy superpower. That means doing what we can to grow our economy right now, and it makes sure that we are diversifying our export markets.

This bill would allow us to be more competitive in a global market and get our products to market. It would allow us to be competitive in terms of seeking investment and creating those opportunities right across the country. Those opportunities are there in every sector of our economy.

Canada has what the world wants. We have amazing opportunities. Particularly in my province of British Columbia, we are the gateway to Asia. This is where a lot of this development is going to happen, and the measures that are in this bill would allow us to fully take advantage of that.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Bill C-40

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker. I am rising this evening on a question of privilege concerning the leak of key details of Bill C-40, an act respecting production, procurement and investment in relation to national defence and national security, which was tabled in the House earlier today.

Yesterday afternoon, the Globe and Mail published a report entitled “Ottawa to turn defence procurement agency into Crown corporation, sources say”, which cited three sources for its revelations. According to this report, “The three sources said legislation being tabled this week by Procurement Minister...includes measures to make the DIA a Crown corporation.”

A few hours later, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published its own reporting on the matter, advising that the public works minister “plans on introducing new, separate legislation taking the DIA one step further into independent Crown corporation status. The title of the proposed bill has appeared in House of Commons documents.”

The entire thrust of part 1 of Bill C-40, something which could not be gleaned from the long title of the bill, is to establish something called the Canadian corporation for defence investment. Given the proposals to stand up the Defence Investment Agency found in Bill C-31, which is currently before the Standing Committee on Finance, Steven Chase's and Marieke Walsh's sources could not be said to have simply triangulated publicly available information to deduce the government's plans.

However, the revelations did not stop there. The Toronto newspaper also indicated that the government “announced in April that it planned to create a cabinet position, the minister of defence procurement, to steer purchasing”, and, “Three sources said the legislation being tabled Tuesday also will lay out the duties of this new minister.”

As for these ministerial arrangements, the CBC's Murray Brewster reported, “the Crown corporation would report to an associate minister of defence for public accountability purposes.” That associate minister role is exactly what clauses 13 and 14 of Bill C-40 would establish.

Again, this is not something discernible from the long title, nor were these specifics telegraphed as such in any previous public statements by the government. What we are looking at here is a leak of the provisions of Bill C-40 while it was on notice for introduction.

Paragraph 3.14 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explains that:

The premature disclosure of bills which have not yet been read in the House may be a breach of privilege. There is a well-established convention of parliamentary practice whereby members must be the first to be informed of the substance of legislative measures. This is because the House plays an essential role in the legislative process. The rule governing the confidentiality of bills ensures that members, as lawmakers, are aware of the details of a bill before they are made public. It is therefore forbidden to disclose specific provisions of a bill from the time notice is given to first reading. Only the title is made public when the Notice Paper is published.

Mr. Speaker Milliken put it more succinctly on March 19, 2001, at page 1840 of the Debates. He said, “it is clear that information concerning legislation, although denied to members, was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House”, and, “I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House”.

The report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that followed that 2001 leak, concluded, “This case should serve as a warning that our House will insist on the full recognition of its constitutional function and historic privileges across the full spectrum of government.”

Sadly, the warning has had to be sounded multiple times since, following rulings by your predecessors finding similar prima facie contempt on October 15, 2001, April 19, 2016 and March 10, 2020. That is not to mention several other close call rulings that fell short of the necessary threshold yet saw the Chair sound cautionary notes for future reference. Most of those close calls occurred under the present Liberal government, which would often answer questions of privilege with claims that no one could be certain who had leaked the bill or even when it had been leaked, citing advance policy consultations with stakeholders. In fact, both news reports yesterday specifically tied the information shared by sources to the bill placed on the Notice Paper.

What is more is that no such defence can be offered about stakeholders being naive to parliamentary conventions talking about the consultations they participated in. In both reports, the news outlets granted their “federal sources”, according to the CBC, anonymity because they were “not authorized to discuss the matter publicly” and “not authorized to speak publicly”.

The fact that we cannot say for sure exactly which Liberals leaked the content of the bill is, however, no impediment to the Speaker finding a prima facie case of privilege. When confronted with a similar case, Mr. Speaker Milliken said on October 15, 2001, at page 6085 of the Debates:

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona in his remarks tried to assist the Chair by suggesting that it was for the Chair to investigate the matter and come up with the name of the culprit and so on. I respect his opinion of course in all matters, but in this matter I think his view is perhaps wrong. There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House.

Moreover, after anonymity had been sought by the sources cited in The Canadian Press on the former Bill C-7 respecting medical assistance in dying, Mr. Speaker Rota said, in finding a prima facie contempt on March 10, 2020, at page 1892 of the Debates, “Everything indicates that the act was deliberate. It is difficult to posit a misunderstanding or ignorance of the rules in this case.” Just as in 2020, the leakers knew what they were doing, they knew it was wrong and they knew why it was wrong.

What is more troubling is that this is just one action of many taken by a Liberal government that increasingly disrespects and disregards Parliament. This is not the first such complaint the Chair has entertained about MPs getting information after the media. It is not even the first such complaint this week.

We have a Prime Minister whose question period participation rate is setting records, but the bad kind, I should clarify. After the Liberal Prime Minister declared a trade war this summer, his first address to parliamentarians was in Strasbourg, to Europe's Parliament, not here in Ottawa to Canada's own Parliament. I could go on.

The House must stand up for its rights, especially against a government that appears happy to see Parliament as nothing but a distraction or, worse, just a mere speed bump. If the Speaker agrees with me that there is a prima facie contempt, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. The Chair will take it under advisement.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Building Canada Strong Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-39, another cynical Liberal bill. Do members remember years back when the Liberal government campaigned to end all government practice of using omnibus bills to reduce scrutiny of legislative measures? This was part of their campaign for a “real change” plan for restoring democracy. What do we have here? We have another massive omnibus bill, one of many introduced by a Liberal government that promised to do away with omnibus bills. It is the same Liberal government that promised to increase transparency, and it has done the opposite. It is the same Liberal government that said there would be more accountability for its legislation, yet we have the opposite.

We have the same Liberal government creating side departments to circumvent Parliament and accountability, such as the Defence Investment Agency, which is called the DIA. It is actually more like the DOA because it is still being debated. It was created as part of the budget implementation act, but before it has even been officially created, the Liberals are already killing it off and trying to turn it into a Crown corporation, which would allow even less scrutiny and accountability. However, I digress.

As I mentioned, here we go again with another omnibus bill from the Liberals. I am sure when they were putting this bill together, the Liberal PMO and other advisers were chortling about what a great wedge bill this is, because while it has legislation in it to increase economic growth, at the same time, there is a bit of a poison pill around labour so that if the Conservatives oppose the bill, they can say the Conservatives are opposing growth. If we support the bill, they will turn around and say the Conservatives are stabbing labour in the back. It is the same thing they are doing to my NDP colleagues. If the NDP does not support it, we know full well it is going to be a Liberal talking point to say the NDP is antidevelopment. If the NDP does support it, we know full well they will be saying the NDP supported all of their back-to-work legislation. It is a cynical wedge bill that could only be put forward by the government. It is unfortunate, but here we have it.

Why, I have to ask, another piece of legislation? Over a year ago in this House, the Conservatives supported the Liberals in passing Bill C-5 and gave unprecedented powers to the government to push through projects at speeds we have never seen before, of course. What happened? Nothing. Nothing has been done or approved, except that the Major Projects Office and the DIA were created, but they have not moved at the speed of anything.

The finance minister, when Bill C-5 was introduced, stated it was aimed at “accelerating transformative projects of national interest”. Where have we heard that? We have heard a lot lately about needing Bill C-39 to push through items of national interest. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said that Bill C-5 would remove barriers, leverage resources and help Canada become an energy superpower. That was for Bill C-5, so why is it repeated for Bill C-39?

In this House, we gave the Liberals unprecedented powers to get projects built, to build the economy, to perhaps get a pipeline built, to develop the energy industry and to develop the mining industry, and nothing was done. They brought in the Major Projects Office to sidestep their own regulations. The question I have is, why does the government not just fix its broken regulatory regime? Why do we have all these bills and regulations on the books? Why do the Liberals have to create legislation such as Bill C-5 to get around their own bad laws and regulations, Bill C-39 to do the same thing and the Major Projects Office to do the same thing? With defence procurement, there is the DIA, which they are now killing off to create a Crown corporation. Why do we need cabinet or bureaucrats deciding what is deemed worthy of special treatment?

That is what this is. It is the government picking winners and losers. It is no different from what the Liberals did a couple of years ago with piling taxpayers' money into EV battery projects around the country for billions and billions of dollars.

We saw it with Brampton. The Liberals gave Stellantis hundreds of millions of dollars. When we tried to investigate the money given to it, the deputy minister said that it was Stellantis that was refusing to release the documents about what happened with the money for Brampton. Stellantis came forward and said that this was not true, gave the documents and said the deputy minister was lying.

Again, it goes back to the question of why the government is picking winners and losers. Why not clear up the regulatory regime, the 300,000 some-odd regulations that are on the books, so that private capital can decide what is a winner and what is a loser? How is it that we have a pipeline to the Lower Mainland, for which taxpayers are going to pay the bill of probably $50 billion, and $10 billion, give or take, to dredge up Roberts Bank, with more public money probably going into bailing out carbon capture? How is that in the public interest, with all the public money going into it, when we could just change our rules and allow the private sector to get that work done, as with northern gateway, originally proposed to a deepwater port, which did not need taxpayers' money to dredge out? We did not need taxpayers' money to build the pipeline.

I support pipelines. We certainly need them. We saw today the gap between West Texas Intermediate and WCS, which is $25 a barrel because of the constrictions of exports caused by the government killing off northern gateway and killing off energy east. How is it in the public interest to spend billions and billions to do the pipeline when private capital could be doing it? Why not create a regulatory environment that is welcoming to capital and investment?

The International Energy Agency calls the current energy crisis “the largest supply disruption in history”. Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves. We are the only one in the top four that is a democracy, the only one that follows the rule of law. We would think people would be begging to develop our oil and gas and begging to get pipelines built to get oil. Instead, because of the Liberals and the regulatory regime, we have to have public money doing it. Why is the government doing this instead of just getting out of the way?

According to a recent study, Canada has fallen from ninth to 18th on economic freedom. The factors in deciding this ranking include sound money, size of government and regulations. Under “Size of Government”, a thing that reads into our drop from ninth to 18th on freedom, is “Government consumption without interest payments”, which is very high under the government. “Government consumption with interest payments” is, again, very high. As for “Top marginal income tax rate and the threshold at which it applies”, the first thing the government did upon getting elected in 2015 was jack up the top marginal tax rate, followed by Premier Eby, it seems, right now.

On “State ownership of assets”, having too much state ownership of assets causes us to drop lower in the ranking. What are we seeing? The government is going to be owning Pacific link on top of TransCanada because the Liberals have created a regulatory environment where no one is investing in Canada.

Under “Sound Money” is “Money growth”. We saw the government printing hundreds of billions of dollars, with inflation. Under “Regulation” is “Regulatory burden”, which adds to our low ranking. There is “Bureaucracy costs” and “Impartial public administration”. It goes on and on.

The government needs to get out of the way of private capital. It needs to get out of the way of business. It needs to reduce the regulatory burden. It needs to stop coming forward with all this legislation that is supposed to do so much but does nothing. The government just needs to get out of the way.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I have a great deal of respect for him. I listened intently to his comments. He spent a great deal of time talking about process. I have to be clear. Canada's government views this very clearly. Process is not the objective. Results and getting things done are the objective.

Does the hon. member not agree that having a one-year time frame to approve major projects through a clear and predictable system that benefits the private sector and benefits labour, while respecting indigenous rights and the environment, is a good thing?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the operations committee. I think we have a mutual respect for each other.

The legislation clearly proposes a one-year approval period, but it would not be one year as, perhaps, the government is pretending or creating propaganda about. It would be one year after the approval process gets through, and the minister could still step in and extend that one-year period. It is kind of a fake one year that the government is pushing out.

Before the member spoke, we were debating with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, who was pushing for an oil and gas cap and could not even answer the question of whether he supported the very pipeline the government wants to build at taxpayers' expense. This is the issue. There is the paperwork, but members of his own government are opposing the oil and gas that Bill C-39 is supposed to be helping.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the previous question, the member opposite lamented the fact that process holds up these bills. I wonder if my colleague, whose speech was excellent, could speak about the importance of process in making sure Canadians are able to comprehend what their government is doing so that they can have confidence that it is working for them.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of faith in this process the government is creating. There would be too much power in the hands of the minister and too much power with the bureaucrats.

Part of the bill, and I wish I had more time to get to it, is changes to the Labour Code, wherein an adjudicator appointed by the government would decide or help to decide whether to end a labour issue, not the House, as has been done traditionally. We would perhaps have a conflicted facilitator advising the government, and the minister alone deciding whether to order a stoppage. There would be no accountability to the House or to Canadians.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague talk about this. I think it is easy to say government needs to get out of the way, or we need less government, without really putting into words what that actually means to real people.

The bill is a proposal to put in a one-year review timeline. What would the member propose to make things move forward so these investments can actually make it to the communities and the businesses who need them, other than just slogans or getting government out of the way?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple solution: get rid of Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill, and get rid of Bill C-48, which bans Alberta oil off the northern B.C. coast. These two pieces of government legislation are responsible for the killing of more investment in this country than anything else Trudeau or anyone else in the government could have thought of.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, Canadians have seen how events that are happening far from home can have a very real effect on our economy. A conflict on the other side of the world can disrupt the energy market. A lack of shipping capacity can drive up costs for our businesses. A disruption on a railway, on a highway or at a port can affect producers and consumers at both ends of the supply chain.

In light of these circumstances, our government was elected on a clear commitment to strengthen Canada's economic sovereignty. Our country must have the means to build bigger, stronger and faster. Our supply chains are the backbone of our economy. They rely not only on our ports, our railways and our roads, but also on the workers who keep them running every day. Strong supply chains are therefore critical to our government's plan, a plan that seeks to double our exports to markets other than the United States, to build major projects and to attract more investors to Canada. Basically, Bill C-39 seeks to do one thing and that is strengthen our supply chains. It proposes a more holistic view of our transportation system. Today, we sometimes tend to look at the various components separately, whether it be a port, a railway, a highway or a border crossing. Bill C-39 would instead enable us to look at these infrastructure as different parts of a single trade network. The government could thus officially designate national trade corridors and establish performance measures for those corridors. In practical terms, that means tracking the movement of goods, identifying where delays are occurring, identifying capacity issues and measuring the performance of the entire network.

Bill C-39 would also create a national trade corridors council. Its role would be to monitor the movement of goods, analyze disruptions, identify areas where the system can be improved and make recommendations to the Minister of Transport.

Why does this matter?

This matters because when we invest in our infrastructure, we want to invest in the right place. We want every investment to have the greatest possible impact. The reliability of our trade corridors has a very real impact. A congested port can mean additional costs for businesses. A lack of rail capacity can mean grain sitting in elevators rather than moving to markets. That is why the second major element of Bill C‑39 has to do with our ports. Canadian port authorities are critical to our supply chains. The bill would modernize their governance. It would also give them more trade and financial flexibility. This flexibility would allow them to invest, generate revenue and develop the infrastructure needed for trade. Bill C-39 also creates new indigenous advisory councils, since indigenous communities are essential partners in the development and operation of our transportation infrastructure. Bill C‑39 maintains the role of ports as non-profit organizations. It simply provides them with more opportunities for partnerships and capital projects.

However, infrastructure is only part of the challenge. The other part is the regulatory system around it. Today, a business may have to provide similar information to several departments or agencies. That means a lot more forms, a lot more duplication and much higher administrative costs. Bill C‑39 would allow for better information sharing between authorized public government institutions. Our goal is simple: to reduce the administrative burden and make our processes more efficient.

The bill would also promote paperless trade. It would recognize electronic transferable documents that meet international standards. This means simpler information sharing, less duplication and less paperwork.

We need to build faster. Bill C‑39 also addresses project approval timelines. Bill C‑39 would create a transportation project office within Transport Canada. Its role would be to better coordinate federal authorizations and consultations for transportation projects. The goal is to provide a clearer federal pathway for priority infrastructure and to get projects from the application phase to the decision phase more efficiently.

However, I want to be clear on this point. It is not about eliminating standards. It is about reducing duplication. It is not about removing consultation. Rather, it is about making the process more consistent and predictable, while upholding the standards that we are proud of as Canadians. Canada needs to be able to build faster while continuing to build responsibly.

Lastly, Bill C-39 recognizes an incontrovertible reality: The resilience of our supply chains also depends on security. This bill would modernize Canada's transportation security clearance framework. It would expand the roles to which these clearances can apply, improve risk assessment, strengthen information sharing and provide better tools for granting, denying, suspending or cancelling a clearance. The goal is simple: We need to respond more effectively to complex and ever-changing threats because security is essential to the resilience of our supply chains.

Taken together, these measures offer a practical, coordinated approach to strengthening the economy and making it work better. We need to be able to move goods from farms to silos, from mines to ports, from factories to markets and from our communities to customers around the world. We need a transportation system that can keep pace with our investments and with the opportunities available to us. That means building our capacity, but also making better use of the capacity we already have. It means having the information we need to understand how our corridors work. It also means ensuring that our ports have the necessary tools and flexibility to grow. This means making sure that when we approve and build major transportation projects, we do so with the coordination and predictability that Canadians expect.

That is why strengthening our supply chains is fundamentally about strengthening Canada's economy. It is about building transportation capacity, improving coordination, strengthening our resilience and preparing Canada for the economy of today and the economy of tomorrow.

That is how we are building Canada strong.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. I found it very interesting. It seems to be a continuation of what we wanted to do in 2015 after the election when Mr. Trudeau took office and tried to undo all the work we had done.

Why wait 11 years to get this done?