Debates of Feb. 25th, 2026

Motions in Amendment

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect and applaud the member beside me for coming out with such a strong statement against Alto.

I understand that we share similar riding demographics, and both our ridings are affected by this project. Could the member elaborate on some of the concerns and/or feedback he is getting from his constituents and why, in the role of opposition, he is so able to speak against it?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga because I know that her community is rightly concerned as well. The hon. member has also expressed her concerns about and opposition to this project because of the effects that it is going to have on private properties, farms, small businesses, homes, heritage sites and the environment, with no benefit to those in the community, and at great cost.

I appreciate that we have that opportunity, but it is such an important role we play in His Majesty's loyal opposition to be able to offer the alternative view, and to be able to stand up for our constituents and for Canadians. I applaud her for her work in doing that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things I could talk about when it comes to the budget from the perspective of the challenges it brings. The first thing we can look at, of course, is the fact that there is $78 billion in new debt being created for future taxpayers.

What I would like to do tonight, because I have had the opportunity to speak to some of those things before, is speak directly to the veterans in this country, to their families and to the people who support our veterans. That is because, while the government is spending $78 billion that it does not have, the one place, or one of the very few places, where it has decided to cut very deeply, frankly, are services for our veterans.

The one place where we should not have those kinds of cuts, the one place where every penny that is deserved should go, is to the services for those men and women who have served this country, in many cases have bled or given their limbs. That is the place where the government decided to find cuts. That is the one place it decided to take from: from the veterans who have given everything for this country.

It saddens me, frankly, to even have to talk about this. What we know at this point is that there are about $4 billion in cuts in the budget when it comes to our veterans. The government will not admit to that. In fact, when the Minister of Veterans Affairs was asked about the cuts that are widely reported in the media and widely acknowledged by everyone except for the government, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said the government is not making cuts but is investing in veterans.

However, it is very clear in the budget that $4 billion in cuts to veterans are coming. When the government is not even willing to be open and honest and admit to what the cuts are, it leaves veterans, their family members and the people who support our veterans wondering what they will be. What cuts are they going to face? Obviously, that has almost a worse impact than knowing what those cuts will be.

The government has admitted to one of the cuts it will be making. It has said that it is going to cut the reimbursement rate for cannabis. It has tried to claim that this would in fact make up the whole $4 billion in cuts. We are talking about a program that is a little over $200 million a year, and the government will be cutting the reimbursement rate by about a quarter. I am not sure how those numbers add up. Maybe there is some math I am not understanding. The government says it will be lifetime costs and those kinds of things, but that is a lot of pot over a long period of time. Clearly that is not an accurate representation of what the cuts are.

What we have been able to learn through scouring the budget and through some of the things we have been hearing from veterans in the veteran community is that there seem to be about about five different areas thus far where we have been able to determine there are some cuts coming to services for veterans. I want to speak a little bit to those cuts and what their impact will be.

The first one, of course, is that the government is changing pension indexing for disabled RCMP veterans, which is going to result in lower pensions over time for those veterans. This is buried on, I think, page 441 of the budget. The government is going to retroactively change the legislation to avoid paying back to veterans who were in long-term care money that they were overcharged.

I mentioned already that the government is making a cut to the reimbursement rate for medical cannabis. What we are hearing from many veterans is that this will mean the products they have been able to use, which have been helpful to them, may not be available to them any longer because of that change in the rate. That will possibly put them down paths they do not want to end up on.

We are also hearing about repayments being demanded from veterans of their income replacement benefits. Veterans, numbering into the thousands, have received letters from the government telling them they must repay immediately thousands of dollars paid to them with respect to their disability status. We have heard of instances of over $100,000 that veterans are being asked to repay. It is being taken right out of their disability pension and other things.

Imagine the impact this is going to have on a disabled veteran. We are talking about the most vulnerable veterans, the ones who need it the most, frankly. They are having it taken away from them when they are already living on a fixed budget and a fixed income. Of course, with the inflation and everything else we have seen over the last 10 years under the Liberal government, they are already in a really difficult spot. This will likely put out on the street veterans who are not there now.

This is the kind of thing we are talking about, heartless sorts of cuts, when the Liberals are spending money on all kinds of things. We heard my colleague just now talk about one example of that, but there are many, and then they choose to go after disabled veterans and those who are in long-term care. That is how the Liberals are trying to make up the money they are wasting elsewhere.

We have heard recently as well that there are layoffs coming at what is called the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. For people who are not familiar with the process that veterans go through, I want to talk about that for a moment. I am being told by the people who are involved that ultimately that is going to mean likely two years or more in delays for veterans to have their cases or their appeals heard at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

It is important at this point that I explain what veterans deal with when they put in an application to the government. Veterans often talk about delays, denials and being put off until, the government hopes, they give up and go away. The amount of time it can take is not measured in weeks or in months. It is measured in years, in most cases, for a veteran to get just their most basic claims they need for disability benefits or other things approved, or not. Often it takes actually going through an appeal process that then takes more years at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board before veterans finally are able to hopefully get, in most cases, at least when it gets to that point, the benefits they are entitled to.

Now there is talk about laying off people at the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. They are the people who represent veterans because the amount of paperwork, bureaucracy and red tape required to go through the process is too much to manage. These are essentially lawyers who are available to veterans in order to deal with all that. When people are laid off at the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, it is going to mean delays for thousands of veterans. Roughly 10,000 cases are heard every year there. What I am hearing is that it is going to cut in half the number of cases that can be heard, which means that thousands of veterans this year will not have their case heard, will not get the benefits they need and therefore will not be able to move on with their life.

What we are talking about is a government that is going to run a $78-billion deficit, on top of hundreds of billions of dollars it has already added to the debt. The one place the government chooses to cut is for the veterans, the men and women who have bled, given their limbs and their lives in some cases, for this country. The Liberals would tell disabled veterans and those in long-term care, once again just like Justin Trudeau once told them, that they are asking for more than we can give.

Frankly, the men and women who serve this country in uniform deserve everything they are entitled to. If this is the one place where the heartless government is going to cut, when it would spend $78 billion of taxpayer money that it does not have, that is shameful and disgraceful, and I cannot stand for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not buy into what the member suggests the government has done. I sat in opposition in the third party when Stephen Harper, along with the current leader of the Conservative Party, literally shut down veterans offices across Canada, including in my home province of Manitoba. I do not think there are any lessons to be learned from the Conservative Party on that issue.

One of the member's colleagues talked about how Canadians want to see action, and that is exactly what they have seen since the last election, whether it is building one Canadian economy, looking at export opportunities through international enhancement of trade relations, or this particular budget.

Can the member appreciate the effort in building one Canadian economy that is stronger and healthier?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there it is again. I mentioned it. The Liberals deny they are even making the cuts, and then they blame everybody else. They go back and blame a prime minister who was in office more than 10 years ago for the cuts being made today.

The Liberals do not even want to admit to these cuts, but they are taking away from disabled veterans and from veterans who are in long-term care, while spending $78 billion of taxpayers' money that they do not even have today. It is future taxpayers' money. One place they will cut is funding for disabled veterans and veterans in long-term care.

That is shameful and disgraceful, and it is sad to see a member on that side stand up and try to defend it, because that is disgraceful.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that veterans deserve our utmost respect and much better treatment, as do many other people in our society, including people with disabilities and seniors. It is hard to invest properly to help them. Let me explain.

My colleague talked about cost overruns and the Liberals' tendency to mismanage things. Phoenix and ArriveCAN were mentioned today as examples. Now the Cúram software project is way over budget. It seems like the government is losing control of these programs. That means less money is available to help people in need.

Can my colleague comment on that?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the member has touched on here highlights the biggest problem that we see. I spoke tonight to the veterans' situation, but there are a lot of other reasons to be concerned about what is going on here.

At the end of the day, the most important thing to point out here is that the deficits and debt being created lead to inflation, and that inflation harms the people who are the most vulnerable in our society. It is not just veterans who are living on fixed incomes; it is also seniors, as the member mentioned. It is people who are lower-income. They are affected the most.

We hear about the millions of people in this country who are now going to food banks who were not going before. That is a result of the kind of policies we have seen over the last 10 years under the Liberal government, and it is time for it to come to an end.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a 605-clause bill. The member did not even have time to get into all the detail of the veterans components. I want to give him time to unpack what the Liberals have done with respect to the reimbursement of veterans.

There is a 1998 law that the department has not followed for 28 years. The Liberals are losing in court to veterans who are suing them to get the proper compensation. The Liberals' reaction is to go backward and amend a 28-year-old law in order to give them legal cover to continue to undercompensate veterans. It is Orwellian: “Who controls the present controls the past.”

I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important point that I did not get a chance to speak to.

This was a mistake that was made by the Liberals. They are going back to veterans who are in long-term care in one case, and to veterans who are disabled in another. They are demanding repayment in one case. The Liberals are retroactively changing legislation to avoid having to reimburse the veterans they were overcharging for long-term care. For years they were overcharged. The Liberals are retroactively changing the legislation not only to avoid a lawsuit but also to avoid paying back veterans who are in long-term care. It is sad.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what have Liberals given Canadians after 10 years? They have forced 2.2 million Canadians to food banks in a single month. They have ensured that Canada has the most indebted households in the entire G7. They have made sure that food inflation is the highest in the entire G7.

After causing all of that and knowing they caused all that, the first thing the Liberals are trying to do in this budget implementation act is to give unlimited powers to their ministers, and to do what? It is so they can reward, behind backdoor shady deals, and give Liberal-connected insiders, whether individuals or companies like Brookfield, contracts that would be void of and could avoid the Conflict of Interest Act.

In fact, the Liberals wanted to give unlimited powers to ministers and the Prime Minister to give contracts to any entity or company that would avoid any act of Parliament, including the Conflict of Interest Act, or anything except something that would break the Criminal Code. These could be shady backroom deals.

We have seen this with the Liberals before. While this country is being hit with high inflation and a crime rate that is out of control because of soft-on-crime Liberal policies, and after knowing all of that, this was what the Liberals wanted to do. It shows where the Prime Minister and the Liberal government's priorities are. They are not with Canadians. They are once again for Liberals and well-connected Liberal insiders.

The Prime Minister said a lot of things during the election, but I want to highlight some of the things he said he would do. He said that he was the guy, and that if he was elected, he would fix all the problems that 10 years of the Liberals created. In fact, a Liberal is a Liberal, and he liberalled once again. His promises or rhetoric would never match what reality is for Canadians.

This is the guy who says to judge him by the price of food at the grocery store. What ended up happening after he said that? Canada now has the highest food inflation in the entire G7. It is the highest. In fact, it is double what it is in the U.S., and I hear the Liberals being happy about that. They do not care that there are moms who have to double-check and triple-check the price of food now before they buy it, that they have to starve themselves or choose less nutritious food for their children because of how high food inflation is in Canada after 10 years of the Liberals' failed policies.

What did the Liberals do in this budget? They could have done a lot in this budget to help bring down food prices. Remember, it was the current finance minister, right before Thanksgiving 2023, who tried to put on this strong act and said he was going to call all the CEOs from the grocery stores, tell them what was on his mind and tell them the way it is, and that after that, grocery prices would come down. Thanksgiving 2023, Thanksgiving 2024 and Thanksgiving 2025 went by, and the only thing that happened was that Canada got the highest food inflation in the G7. This is the track record of the government.

Once again they talked a big game, but the reality for Canadians did not match the big rhetoric coming out of the Liberals' mouths. The Prime Minister, again, said that he was the guy who should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. The verdict is out, and it is very expensive. It is one of the reasons 2.2 million Canadians are visiting a food bank in a single month now, a third of whom are children. Children are starving in this country. I cannot believe we are talking about this in a first world country like Canada. This is the reality, where people who used to volunteer at food banks are now standing in line at the food bank, waiting for food, because they are hungry. Once again the Prime Minister's rhetoric did not match what the reality of Canadians is today.

This is the same Prime Minister who said he was going to get a deal with Trump, that he was the guy. Canadians should elect him and watch his elbows go up. What happened after that? He continued the same failed policies of Justin Trudeau, who for 10 years was blocking our resources and making sure that nothing got built in this country. It is the same reason Canada is not the strong, sovereign, independent country and energy superpower that it should be today. It is because the Prime Minister doubled down on those same policies. He said he signed a piece of paper saying they intend and want pipelines to be built, but the same policies that were passed that do not let anything get built in this country are still there, and they will continue to be there because this eco-radical government's ideology will not let them get anything built.

We should have had pipelines built. We could have had mines built. In fact, when I talked to a mining company in B.C., they said it takes something like 18 years to get a mine approved. Who wants to invest in Canada and pump in all this money for 18 years to maybe get a permit approved for a mine? It is ridiculous. This is why more than $600 billion of good Canadian investment has fled to the U.S. in 10 years under the Liberals. The Prime Minister is no different, because close to $60 billion of Canadian investment fled to the U.S. once he became Prime Minister.

There is no investment environment left in Canada for people to see any type of return, because the same failed policies, like Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill, are still there. Bill C-48, which does not let our product leave the west coast, is still there. The industrial carbon tax, which also contributes to higher grocery prices, is still there. While I am talking about grocery prices, the Liberals have still not gotten rid of the food packaging tax, which adds an extra $1 billion in costs on food every single year. That is not in this budget. In fact, they promised in this budget that food prices would go up, because the industrial carbon tax would go up. When it comes to our energy sector, the industrial carbon tax is still there and does more harm than good. The Liberals do not really have a plan.

All of this is the reason Canada is so reliant on the U.S. We are reliant on other countries. We know the stories. When our allies came to us, looking for our good, low-carbon energy, these guys turned them away, saying there was no business case. We still do not have a case, because nothing is getting built in this country. Under the Liberals, nothing will get built in this country. Then the Prime Minister said they were going to build at speeds not seen since World War II, yet, according to their own housing agency, every single year they miss their targets. They are well below their targets.

Instead of putting foundations into the ground, the only thing that these guys have created in this budget is a fourth bureaucracy. After they spent over $90 billion on housing, housing is more expensive than ever. In fact, youth do not now think they will ever be able to afford a house unless they have the bank of mom and dad. That is the reality after 10 years of the Liberal government. We need to turn all of that around and bring hope back to this country.

Under the leadership of our leader, that is what the Conservatives will do. We need to get our resources to market and get rid of these bad Liberal laws that are anti-development, anti-growth and anti-resources. We need to get those out of the way so we can produce more here and sell more, so we are not only independent but self-reliant and can become an energy superpower once again, as we used to be.

Conservatives are going to get all the gatekeepers out of the way so we can get more homes built in this country. We are going to stop the out-of-control deficits, like the ones the government continues to have, that make taxes go up. We will bring down everyone's taxes and make sure inflation does not get out of control like it does under the Liberals, so Canadians can keep more in their pockets and spend more on what they want to spend it on.

A Conservative government is also going to bring back safe streets, something the entire country is crying for. That will happen under the Conservatives.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think if Canadians wanted to understand exactly why the Conservative Party lost a 25-point lead in the last election, they could look at the member's speech here this afternoon. Even in Alberta, recent polling is showing a tightening and Liberals being competitive in ridings such as the riding of the member opposite. I do not know if there is anything that they will bring to the table that is new. That is really unfortunate, because we just heard members opposite being collaborative and willing to work together for the betterment of Canadians. Frankly, it is embarrassing, this kind of rhetoric in the House of Commons. It is nothing but a word salad of catchphrases and Conservative talking points.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to come to my riding and to come to Alberta, because if I were to repeat what my constituents are saying about his government, I would probably get kicked out of this place. My constituents are the ones who are suffering from 10 years of bad Liberal policy. It is my province that always gets kicked down by the Liberals.

Albertans are giving. We have always been giving, but we just want the federal government to get out of the way, and the Liberal government refuses to do that. That is why our energy production is not there. That is why we cannot get any resources built. I seriously am inviting the member to come door knocking in my riding so he can hear what my constituents are actually saying.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech, my colleague mentioned the Prime Minister's interests in Brookfield and his other investments. I would like to ask him a question about the governance choices the Prime Minister is making and the potential benefits to Brookfield, for example.

One example is his elimination of the minimum tax for American companies that use tax havens. Brookfield had just moved its headquarters from Toronto to New York to take advantage of this. His Bill C-15 eliminates the tax on web giants. However, we know that he has a stake in web giants.

With regard to all the subsidies the Prime Minister will be giving to industries and how these align with economic development, does my colleague believe that there is sufficient separation between his decisions and his interests?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I actually enjoyed my time together with the member on the finance committee when he was there, and he is absolutely right. It is this trend under the Prime Minister. He obviously has conflicts with Brookfield, yet one of the first things the government tried to do within the budget implementation act was give itself unlimited power, so the Prime Minister, behind closed doors, could give Brookfield a government contract from taxpayers without having to go through the conflict of interest test. That is literally what the government tried to do. I thank God that we, as Conservatives, stopped that from happening and put safeguards there.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member actually highlighted quite a few things. One thing I would like to ask him about is in regard to the government. The Liberals have been in power for a year under the Prime Minister and 10 years under the previous government. What does Canada look like after 10 years of mismanagement, and how is that impacting his province and morale in his province?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to see that the stats speak for themselves in Canada after 11 years or 10 years of Liberal governments. It does not matter who is at the head. It is still the same ministers, it is still the same House leader and it is still the same ideology, and 2.2 million Canadians are visiting a food bank in a single month. There are more children hungry today than there were 10 years ago.

When the member was a part of the Stephen Harper government, we had a very rich middle class, and that middle class is becoming poorer and poorer. In fact, the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider now. That is not something that we should be seeing in a first world country, but under the Liberals that is what we are seeing now. Canada used to be the envy of the world. In fact, I remember that when the member was a part of the Stephen Harper government, in 2014, there was an article that said that the American dream is in Canada now. Just two years ago, there was a paper that said that the Canadian dream is gone and has fled to the U.S. That is the difference.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I usually begin a speech by saying it is an honour or a pleasure to stand to speak to the bill before us, but I am so deeply appalled and offended by what has been going on in this place since June that I have a hard time speaking without the rage making my voice tremble.

Bill C-15, the omnibus budget bill, is offensive at every level. It is very much an omnibus bill. A budget implementation bill is supposed to implement a budget and not contain surprises, things that were not in the budget and were not even mentioned. However, we are presented with them here and it is all supposed to be fast-tracked. It was fast-tracked by a UC motion, and it was done on Friday the 13th when I was unable to object to the fast-tracking of this bill. I do not regret going to Tumbler Ridge. It was important to be there together with the other party leaders, but I deeply regret that the governing party chose that moment to put forward a unanimous consent motion to fast-track the review of this bill at report stage and third reading.

It is, as we have heard and as Canadians have heard, a bill of over 600 pages. I remember the omnibus budget bill of spring 2012, Bill C-38. I was appalled when Stephen Harper tried to push it through and did in fact push it through. It took longer to debate, in fairness, but it was over 400 pages. The omnibus budget implementation act of spring 2012 was over 400 pages. Here we have the omnibus budget bill to budget 2025-26 and it is over 600 pages, with much of it, as I said, unanticipated. It touches on more than 20 different laws, bills as diverse as anything we have heard of. It deals with the fast-tracked expropriation of lands next to Alto high-speed rail. I support high-speed rail, but I think we needed more time to study this in the House.

We have changes made here to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. My attempts to put forward amendments to that in the finance committee were summarily defeated, but we never properly discussed them. The public has not heard as much as a peep about the things in this budget implementation act, Bill C-15, which would change things for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, weakening environmental protections, particularly around a practice that has been under way since 1988. The act has been around for a long time.

To change it to say we want equivalency with the provinces so that we do not duplicate is a good thing, but it needs to be reviewed now and then. This bill says, no, we are never going to review it. That is it. There is no sunset on that. Equivalency goes forward. A lot of environmental law experts would have liked to testify to that. They would have liked to testify at the environment committee about that, but no amendments occurred to the changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that are included in Bill C-15.

It is egregious, as we have heard from other speakers here tonight, and I should remember the names of the members who spoke so eloquently to the changes that are being made to veterans' rights. I know the member for Vancouver Kingsway mentioned it. We have here in this bill retroactive changes to avoid legislative changes to help our veterans in long-term care have access to the reimbursements to which they are entirely entitled. We are doing a quickie on that one.

Before they can turn around, members will find that this bill also includes a number of time machines. We never had time to talk about it in this place, but Bill C-4, which is currently before the Senate, in part 4, changes privacy rights under the Elections Act. That is a doozy, by the way. We never got to debate that in this place. The bill will enter into force when the Senate is finished with it, and it will enter into force 26 years ago, because it enters into force in the year 2000. Things are being done in this place that should scandalize the members of the House, because they are profoundly anti-democratic. They represent power grabs.

Bill C-5, which was rushed through in June, of course, was the first time any prime minister in Canada has ever used the King Henry VIII clause to say that if something in the bill breaks other laws we have already passed, that is okay. I was not prepared for this to show up when I was reading this monstrous bill and to find in division 5, well over 500 pages in, that Bill C-15 put forward the notion that, unlike in Bill C-5 where the cabinet as a whole could break other laws, an individual minister, at his or her discretion, in areas within his or her jurisdiction, could exempt any entity from the application of any law except the Criminal Code.

I want to thank the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora, who put forward the amendments in committee that would make this less bad, but in case anyone's wondering, spoiler alert, I am not going to vote for this. It is less bad, but it is still pretty awful. I cannot vote for a bill that would say that any minister can exempt an entity from acts except for a listed few, even though the ones listed are good.

On this notion of regulatory sandboxes, as far as I'm concerned and despite the fact that committee members were told in finance committee by Treasury Board officials that regulatory sandboxes are normal and routine and that we should all be used to them by now, I cannot support it. They come from the U.K., the Tory government and the Bank of England, where regulatory sandboxes were initiated in order to innovate financial instruments, services and products and were exempted from laws to be able to innovate and experiment.

I do not mind it so much, although innovation in financial instruments is what led to the collapse of the housing market in the U.S. by bundling together worthless mortgage papers and calling it a product, but it is more dangerous when they are playing with our health and environment.

We do not have any way of really regulating what is going on, even with the admirable work of the member for Newmarket—Aurora. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway referred to it as a “backroom deal”. No doubt that is what happened. It makes this slightly less awful. It would mean that before a minister exempts an entity from the application of a law, there must be a 30-day public consultation period. Unlike the original version of this act that said that the minister will make it public as soon as it is “feasible” but with no timeline on that, thanks to amendments in committee it is now within 30 days that it must be made public. However, that does not allow me to vote for this bill.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway also pointed out, and I will certainly vote for those amendments, that this bill would do away with the digital services tax. While that was not as much of a surprise, given the budget, as other things, and I think regulatory sandboxes were never foreshadowed, certainly in the election campaign, we were told it was “elbows up”. It was subsequent to that, but before the budget, that our elbows dropped when Donald Trump said that he did not like the fact that Canadians were bringing in a digital services tax.

We were doing that in concert with colleagues through the European Union. We need to get a hold of these digital giants that are ripping off our private information for their own profit. We need to have a way of holding them to account. They are eroding our democracy and attacking our public media and newspapers.

I remember a prominent Liberal and respected former minister in this place, the hon. Lloyd Axworthy, who called it “bootlicking” when Trump said that he did not like the digital services tax and the Prime Minister said that we will get rid of it really quickly. I am too nice to say that, but I can quote Lloyd Axworthy saying it.

I find it deeply worrying that we now have to pass an omnibus budget bill in quick fashion, because it has to be done by later tonight. We all know that is the plan. It is going to be whizzed through, because they whizzed through that process in the unanimous consent motion of February 13.

I find this bill deeply offensive. There would be changes to CEPA without proper analysis and study and changes to the digital services tax without us even debating in this place the fact that we are repealing a law that we passed to bring it into effect. We would lose the oversight under the Red Tape Reduction Act. One would have never expected us to bring in the right for any individual minister to exempt an entity from a law, which still remains in place in this bill but with more safeguards and somewhat more transparency.

When I consider all the things that comprise this giant, over 600-page bill, I am offended. I will vote no, and I urge my fellow members to make it less bad by supporting the amendments from the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

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

Mr. Speaker, coming out of the election, whether it was the Prime Minister or the government of the day, we made some significant commitments to Canadians. We have, for example, the one Canada economy, Bill C-5, which the Green Party voted against. We have the issue of the budget, which is a major aspect of any government. It establishes priorities. The Green Party is voting against the budget implementation bill.

My question is on a third point, which is the idea of increasing international trade opportunities. A great deal of resources and efforts are moving in that direction as we build stronger infrastructure within Canada. We are also complementing that by looking for additional trade that goes beyond the Canada-U.S. borders. I am interested in the member's thoughts on the issue of international trade and if Canada is moving in the right direction from her perspective.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say this quickly to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. As he knows, I am the only opposition party member who voted for the budget itself. I largely did that because the budget, on page 348, committed that the eligible uses for investment tax credits would not include “enhanced oil recovery”. It was 10 days after I voted for the budget that the memorandum of understanding with Alberta said to forget that thing written in the budget. I know it is not in disappearing ink as I still see it here in the budget, but the reverse has been promised to Danielle Smith of Alberta.

I support that we friendshore. I support what the former deputy leader Chrystia Freeland said, which is that democracies need democracies, not dictators. Therefore, it bothers me if our international trading partners are Saudi Arabia—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to continue questions and comments.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Clarke.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I disagree on many things. However, two things we share is that we both support trains and the environment, so my question will deal with both.

One of the concerns I have with high-speed rail is the environmental impact it will have, especially given the relatively brief amount of time. Could she share any concerns? Part of it is in my riding and there are some very sensitive areas there.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as has also been pointed out by another colleague from the member's bench, some of the high-speed rail will impact sensitive areas. The problem with building everything fast is this.

I can say it in French. I asked a Bloc Québécois colleague what the French word for “bulldozer” is. It is the same word.

We are seeing a lot of bulldozing over process, procedure, democracy and ecosystems. It goes hand in hand.

I think there are some problems with this omnibus bill.

I agree with my colleague that we should study it. We want rail across Canada, but we need to know what we are getting into.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my colleague, who is the leader of the Green Party and the only Green Party member in the House. Her voice is very important.

Bill C‑15 gives a lot of power to ministers and the executive branch to suspend all laws, aside from the Criminal Code.

Does my colleague think that is a clear signal that anything to do with environmental legislation or the protection of species at risk is being set aside by the Carney government to pass—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the hon. member. Members cannot use the Prime Minister's name in the House.

I will let the hon. member finish her question.

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

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. It must be the late hour. I am tired.

Does my colleague think that, through Bill C‑15, the current Liberal government is signalling a lack of interest in the environment and in environmental protection?