House of Commons Hansard #82 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was commissioner.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Financial Administration Act Second reading of Bill C-230. The bill C-230 proposes amending the Financial Administration Act to establish a public registry for federal debts of $1 million or more that are waived, written off, or forgiven for corporations, trusts, and partnerships. Proponents highlight the need for transparency and fairness, especially concerning large corporate entities. While Liberals commend the effort, they raise concerns about privacy, commercial sensitivities, and administrative burden, suggesting further review in committee. 7400 words, 1 hour.
Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act Second reading of Bill C-10. The bill seeks to establish a new, independent Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation to oversee the federal government's adherence to modern treaties with Indigenous nations. While the Liberal and Bloc parties support this, arguing it enhances accountability and transparency, the Conservative party opposes it, contending it creates unnecessary bureaucracy and duplicates existing oversight by the Auditor General without ensuring ministerial accountability or tangible results. 25800 words, 3 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Old Age Security Act First reading of Bill C-261. The bill amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the full pension amount, aiming to provide a dignified retirement for seniors starting at age 65, correcting what the Bloc MP calls an injustice. 200 words.
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley on the work he has done with the Haisla Nation and others in British Columbia for advancing indigenous reconciliation. I thank him very much for that.
With respect to accountability, the member pointed out correctly that the Auditor General is the ultimate holder to accountability of the government, and that office is being ignored. I predict that the Liberal government would ignore what this commissioner would say.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, we heard again this morning about the uneven, inconsistent and sometimes ignored implementation of the treaty process. We have heard from the nations wanting this treaty commissioner to absolutely ensure that treaty implementation happens. Now, we hear Conservatives say, “Well, that is a waste of money.” However, what is costly is not implementing a treaty because, when treaties are implemented, it creates jobs. Those nations want to participate in the economy. They want to move forward.
We hear also from the Conservatives all the time that the government should have done more. Absolutely, the government should do more, but so should the official opposition. Will the Conservatives admit that they need to ask more questions when it comes to indigenous issues in this place, as the official opposition?
Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC
Mr. Speaker, indeed it is the government's job to implement these treaties. As the opposition, our job is to hold the government to account, as it is that member's responsibility as well.
We need the Conservatives to form government. I am thinking of the Harper days when we actually got the job done. It can be done, and we are waiting for the government to finally take action to get the job done.
Some hon. members
Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I understand that we will be carrying it on division.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:41 p.m. so we could get into the late show.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the late show has never come so early.
I am rising tonight to raise an issue that I initially put before the House on December 9, 2025. I am rather proud of the fact that I seem to have been the first member of Parliament to have put this on the public record. Hopefully people noticed, and yes, there is a growing coalition who wants to raise awareness of the issue I first raised here on December 9. It is division 5 within the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-15, which, at over 600 pages, takes a while to read, get through and study.
I want to categorically put it on the record right now that I see no sign that the Conservatives are filibustering Bill C-15, the omnibus budget bill. It takes a while to study a budget implementation act of over 600 pages. I also believe that since the bill was put up for first reading on November 18, there is no sign of delay since the House, by unanimous consent with my objection, adjourned a day early on December 11. We have only been back a little while, and 600 pages plus changing 20 different laws takes some time.
I maintain, as I did on December 9, that the most egregious section of the bill is the one that says that a minister can, on personal discretion, deciding it is in the public interest, exempt the application of any Canadian law, except the Criminal Code, from application within their area of jurisdiction and that they will make this public not immediately, not soon, but according to the act, as soon as it is feasible, with no time limit on that.
Since the time that people have become alarmed about this, there has been testimony before committee. Because, as we just did, we passed Bill C-15 on division at second reading, we did not have a recorded vote, which is why I have not been able to state on the record that I cannot possibly vote for the budget implementation act as currently drafted with the sections found in division 5.
Since then, because it did pass on division at second reading, it has gone to the finance committee and other committees for study. I found it interesting, in going over the witnesses put forward, the ways in which the Liberals are trying to justify this extraordinary power grab by individual ministers to exempt any entity from the operation of any Canadian law except for the Criminal Code.
The defence of this provision first started with the response by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, who answered and said that because “Canada has world-class innovators and entrepreneurs,” we need to build the strongest economy and “we are reducing red tape”, because division 5 of Bill C-15 is to amend the Red Tape Reduction Act. The hon. parliamentary secretary continued, “As part of this process, we are reducing red tape to broaden the use of something called regulatory sandboxes to help foster and spur research...and innovation.”
Since that time, the concept of regulatory sandboxes has been expanded upon by the witnesses from the Treasury Board before the committee. The witnesses put forward that there were “misconceptions in the public domain”, and they wanted to explain all that because what they said to the committee was that regulatory sandboxes are a “well-established governmental tool” to allow the testing of innovative products.
Where does this well-established governmental tool come from and where is it defined? Even after going back to amend the Red Tape Reduction Act, Bill C-15 does not include any definition of “regulatory sandbox”—
The BudgetAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I have to interrupt the hon. member and proceed to the response.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.
Claude Guay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, as our economy pivots and modernizes, it is important to appreciate the fact that existing regulations may not fit the needs of new and emerging technologies. This can cause significant delays or even stop new products or services from entering the Canadian marketplace. Doing so can hamper Canadian entrepreneurship and innovation, reduce competition and make life less affordable for Canadians.
That is why, in order to help regulation keep pace with innovation, our government committed in budget 2025 to expanding the use of regulatory sandboxes through amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act. As members know, regulatory sandboxes are commonly used devices that permit a new product or service to be tested in the marketplace under a temporary set of rules and controlled by regulatory supervision. This can help regulators safely decide whether to make any permanent regulatory changes to how that product or service should be regulated.
Our government is of the view that regulatory sandboxes would help support economic growth, reduce red tape, and improve Canada's investment environment by permitting new products and new technologies to get to market in a safe and efficient manner.
However, the concerns raised by the member opposite are valid. I would like to reassure my hon. colleague that it would not be the wild west; there would be guardrails in place. Indeed, the government has included safeguards in both the legislation and supporting policy to ensure that regulatory sandboxes would be used responsibly and consistently across the government. Our goal is to protect the economy, the environment and the welfare of Canadians in the use of regulatory sandboxes.
Bill C-15 would not allow ministers to exempt any person or business from any federal law for broad policy purposes. For example, the legislation includes several safeguards, including providing clear time limits for exemption; requiring exemptions be in the public interest; requiring that public health, public safety and the environment be protected; and limiting exemption to individual entities. Exempting entire sectors of an industry or fast-tracking an entire major project is not within the scope.
The legislation also includes explicit transparency and accountability requirements that would allow for continued oversight and prevent executive overreach. The minister would have to publish exception orders and an explanation of the decision-making process, while protecting confidential business information as required by law.
Furthermore, the President of the Treasury Board would have to table an annual report in Parliament listing all exemption orders issued in the previous fiscal year, the rationale for each, and the ministers responsible. This oversight mechanism would ensure that Parliament is informed and able to scrutinize the use of these authorities.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will try to watch the clock carefully, because I cannot possibly take apart even the so-called conditions that are found in proposed paragraphs 12(3)(a) through 12(3)(e) at page 301 of the bill. They are highly discretionary.
The bill would do no such thing as create guardrails; it may create small children waving by the side of the road. It is not a piece of legislation that is well drafted, nor are any of these terms defined, including “public interest” and “regulatory sandbox”. The minister would be allowed to work within their own discretion. Furthermore, the transparency could be as much as a year after the exemption has been granted saying that a federal law does not have to be obeyed.
I would prefer better drafting. I urge the government to amend Bill C-15. If it means what the government has its Treasury Board Secretariat say in committee, it ought to have drafted it to say so.
Claude Guay Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, ministers could not use these provisions to exempt themselves or others from obligation under statutes such as the Conflict of Interest Act, for example. The authorities would apply it only to laws within a minister's portfolio and only for the purpose of testing and innovating under regulatory supervision. Nor is it intended to bypass important protections and lead to regulatory changes that compromise safety or environmental standards.
Regulatory sandboxes are a valuable tool. We would use them to support innovation and to help grow our economy, making it more competitive by creating environments and processes for companies to grow in a way that continues to protect the best interests of Canadian workers, consumers, businesses, the public and the environment.
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canada needs a pipeline. We are a sovereign, resource-rich nation. We produce energy the world wants, yet instead of building the infrastructure that would allow us to sell that energy at full value, the Prime Minister has tied our economic future to a net-zero framework so complex, so conditional, that we are assured it will take forever and cost the max. It goes without saying that approving a nation-building pipeline is not the responsibility of the NDP Premier of B.C; it is a federal responsibility, and it rests squarely on the Prime Minister's desk.
Let us be clear about what is happening in the background. I want to demonstrate that by following a Canadian dollar, one loonie, through the system as it now stands under the Prime Minister. Let us follow it through the Pathways carbon capture project, which the Prime Minister has attached as a condition to the pipeline Canadians so badly need.
First, the carbon capture project itself is risky. It is massive. It is expensive. It is not about affordability; it is about net-zero ideology once again.
In a normal market, investors look at that and say there is too much risk and no return. Since the free market is not interested in these mega-expensive net-zero projects the Prime Minister wants so badly, what happens next? The government steps in and sweetens the deal. This is called de-risking. Ottawa offers investment tax credits. It builds guarantees and backstops. It creates funds designed to absorb losses if things go sideways to ensure there is little risk for the project investor.
In plain language, the government tells the investor not to worry because, if this does not work out the way they hoped, the taxpayer will carry part of the risk. Right there, our humble little loonie transmogrifies, as Calvin and Hobbes would say. It changes from a free-market loonie into an insurance loonie. It moves onto the taxpayers tab.
Here is where Canadians should really stop and pay attention. There is talk that our retirement savings could now be part of this. The Prime Minister talks as though pension savings could be a tool for the government's nation-building agenda. However, is that what Canadians voted for? Did they elect him to find a clever way into the CPP cookie jar? Every paycheque, whether for teachers, public servants, even the translators working right now to ensure my words are heard in French, includes a mandatory deduction for their retirement.
This is their money, and it was deliberately placed out of politicians' reach years ago, which was supported by the Conservatives, precisely so they could not redirect Canadians' retirement savings towards political priorities. Pension funds were designed to be protected from political interference. Their job is to invest responsibly, not to chase ideological projects dressed up as policy.
Here is my key point: We know that, if a project is too risky, it should not qualify for pension investment, but with fancy footwork, the government could de-risk it on the back of the taxpayer and suddenly the project would look safe enough on paper. The spreadsheet improves and projected returns stabilize, not because the risk disappeared, but because middle-class Canadians are now holding the bag. When things go sideways, who carries the risk? Public dollars will absorb losses. The middle-class family will absorb the loss in the form of taxes and inflation. That loonie quietly shrinks in purchasing power.
This is ultimately a question of integrity and fairness. In a free market, risk and reward go hand in hand. Those who take the risk bear the consequences, good or bad. That connection creates discipline and it forces careful decisions, but when the government alters that relationship and stacks the deck, someone loses. When will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind expensive, inflationary, ideological preconditions and approve a pipeline to get to the Pacific to let Canadians get full value for the resources we have in abundance?
Claude Guay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, we are committed to making Canada an energy superpower, both in clean and conventional energy, while protecting our environment, including northern B.C. coasts, and respecting indigenous rights, something we did not hear in the member's elocution.
So far, the government has not received a proposal for the project being referenced by the member opposite. If this pipeline is to be considered, as with any other project, the government is committed to robust consultation with indigenous people. We have been clear that indigenous people must benefit from our efforts to get major projects built faster.
Last summer, the Building Canada Act was passed, an important step toward increasing certainty surrounding infrastructure and natural resources projects. The Major Projects Office is streamlining federal approval processes to accelerate the completion of major projects. These projects include ports, transmission lines, critical mineral projects and both clean and conventional projects. In the Building Canada Act, we emphasized that one of the criteria is that it should advance the interests of indigenous people.
Today, many of the projects referred to the Major Projects Office include indigenous communities as partners with ownership stakes and co-operation agreements. This includes the Red Chris mine expansion in northwest B.C., which is being developed in partnership with the Tahltan Nation. It includes the Iqaluit hydro project in Nunavut, a 100% Inuit-owned renewable energy project. It includes Canada's Crawford nickel project in northern Ontario, with agreements having been signed with Mattagami First Nation, Matachewan First Nation and Flying Post First Nation for early employment opportunities and long-term economic benefits.
These nation-building projects show how indigenous partnerships with the government and industry are unlocking Canada's potential, making Canada an energy superpower while honouring indigenous rights. This effort is bringing jobs to our communities across the country and higher wages to Canadian workers and is creating opportunities for indigenous people.
The government is increasing regulatory certainty, attracting capital and protecting our industry from dependence on American exports as we face the trade war imposed on us by the United States. As part of this work, we concluded a historic memorandum of understanding with Alberta. It is based on concrete solutions, more rigorous and effective industrial carbon pricing, significant private sector investment in clean technology and responsible energy development for workers and communities. The MOU will bring about, as the member mentioned, the Pathways project, a massive carbon capture project reducing emissions across the oil sector as we work toward net zero by 2050.
When it comes to the west coast pipeline, I understand that the Government of Alberta has begun consultations with indigenous rights holders. Premier Danielle Smith already stated that Kitimat is no longer being considered as one of the options for the pipeline project. Important discussions have already been held with Premier David Eby, who expressed openness to such a project if the conditions are met.
Our approach is based on collaboration with indigenous people, Alberta and British Columbia. It is about working together to get projects built faster with certainty, while creating jobs and strengthening our economy.
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not need another process or another framework. They need a pipeline. We are a resource-rich country watching other nations move ahead while we debate conditions and caveats. A pipeline to the Pacific is not an experiment. It is not a theory. It is basic infrastructure, the kind Canada has built before and the kind for which they should already be moving dirt.
Under a Conservative plan, this would be straightforward and less costly. We would approve the project, set a clear route, respect federal jurisdiction and get shovels in the ground, with no ideological add-ons, no extra net-zero preconditions and no endless detours. The reason the pipeline is not built is not because Canada cannot do it. It is because the Prime Minister will not. He keeps adding conditions. He keeps outsourcing responsibility. He keeps pretending a province holds a veto over a project that is squarely federal. Leadership means making a call.
My question is simple: When will the Prime Minister approve a pipeline to the Pacific so that Canadians can finally get to work?
Claude Guay Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government will always work with indigenous people to find the right way forward when it comes to building energy and natural resource projects. These projects can strengthen our economy, diversify our trade and build the resilience we need to face the trade war with the United States. At the same time, they can represent incredible economic opportunities for indigenous people. That is why many projects referred to the Major Projects Office include indigenous nations as partners with equity stakes.
That is why one of the first actions of the government was to double the indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion. We are making Canada an energy superpower, while respecting indigenous rights.
Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5:12 p.m.)