Debates of April 20th, 2026

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I believe there are exceptions in Bill 25. They have to do with the personal information that can be requested by the police if there are threats or if there is a real reason to believe that someone is violating the Criminal Code.

I want to be sure I understand my colleague. Do we agree that the best way forward is to pass the bill at second reading, study it in committee and hear Quebec groups talk about what they have done and what they think about it?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill 25 applies to organizations. At present, when police officers in Quebec conduct an investigation, they appear before a judge and must show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been or will be committed. If officers successfully convince the judge, they obtain a search warrant and may then search cell phones. This is how it is currently done. The question that Bill C‑22 raises is: Should the burden of proof be lowered to make things easier for police officers?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a long record of abuse of power and overreach into the affairs of provincial governments and private citizens. I wonder if my hon. colleague could elaborate on why he thinks the government cannot be trusted once again with this bill.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people often say that opportunity makes the thief. When action is taken to give law enforcement more powers, it must be done in such a way that the data are protected to a degree that constitutes a deterrent. The mere thought of holding on to a year's worth of metadata on everyone's movements would definitely seem like an opportunity to a thief. I think that organized crime would be itching to get its hands on these data. The best approach is to seek advice from top experts to ensure that the data are properly protected.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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, we would like it to carry on division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m. at this time so we could begin the late show.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Natural Resources

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan.

Spring is finally on the horizon. We have been battling a bit of winter wanting to stick around. Of course, until the May long weekend comes and goes, we are never fully out of it, but I know the farmers are feeling the itch, and they are ready to get going and get the spring planting in place so they can start growing the crops for the 2026 season.

I want to take a few moments to discuss the follow-up to the question I asked the Minister of Natural Resources about any future pipeline developments here in Canada. The last pipeline that was built is now running at almost 100% capacity, and people in the oil and gas industry are wondering and waiting to know when the next export pipeline is going to be built in Canada.

Now, the government has taken the step of signing an MOU with the Province of Alberta, suggesting the Liberals are going to try to iron out the details of how they will build another pipeline, possibly, maybe. We are still waiting to find out what is going to happen with that. The MOU was signed a while ago. We have not heard of any recent developments, so we know it is going to be another substantive amount of time before we will see any movement on that.

I want to talk about how the House of Commons has actually been working together. Conservatives worked collaboratively with the government to pass Bill C-5. Bill C-5 was a bill that the Prime Minister said was needed to develop and build things at a speed not seen in a generation, those were his words, and so Conservatives thought we would play ball. We want to see major projects get built, and we want to see that happen in a timely manner. We agree.

We did not think Bill C-5 went far enough, because it did not actually repeal any of the regulations that have crippled resource development in Canada for the last 10 years or longer. What it did do was attempt to give the government the ability to circumvent a lot of those regulations to try to get projects done. It is kind of a weird way of the government admitting that it was wrong for the last 10 years. The Liberals do not want to fully admit it just yet, but they want to give themselves a workaround anyway.

When I look at the Major Projects Office list, I notice there are a lot of projects on the list, but most of those projects already had a final business decision made. Their investment was already finalized and sourced, it was in there, and they already had prior approvals. The government just dumped a bunch of projects in there to make it look like it was doing something. I will note that several of these projects, including the one I asked the minister about before, are still sitting with the status of “referred to MPO”. Not a single project on the list says it has been advanced to the next stage. They are all just sitting there, referred and still waiting.

I want to read a quote from Frances Donald of the Royal Bank of Canada: “This is an entire sector that has repeatedly been pushed into a position where it could not grow”.

The article continues:

Donald said industries—including oil and gas—need consistency for an extended period to be confident enough to invest.

“It is not one person, but it is a change of culture within a country.... We cannot expect that to come in one year with one policy or one pipeline.”

...“Everybody wants to hear there’s one thing we can do that could change the story...But that’s not a holistic way to expect business confidence to shift after over a decade of having moved the pendulum in the (other) direction.”

Here is another quote, from Cenovus Energy: “It will be difficult for the industry to grow production without 'fundamental' changes to government policies and regulations”.

With these kinds of quotes from the biggest bank in Canada and one of the biggest oil and energy producers in Canada, we have not seen any movement from the government to recognize that its policies and regulations are getting in the way. The Major Projects Office is not actually advancing projects at a rate that the Liberals said it would.

When is the government finally going to admit that it was wrong and pass the sovereignty act that the Conservative Party put forward so we can work collaboratively to get rid of the regulations that are hampering our industry?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things that I think we need to level set as I begin my response here. The member talks about crippling the energy industry. The member talks about development for the last 10 years being deficient.

However, I want to note that oil and gas production in Canada increased 34% over the last 10 years. If I compare that globally, global oil and gas production increased 6% over the same time frame. Impressively, Canada managed to do this while reducing our emissions profile, not per capita and not per barrel, but overall, by 6%, showing that there are ways we can both grow our energy sector and meet our commitments to the planet, which I think is a wonderful thing.

The member brought up some specific questions and commentary about the Major Projects Office, which I would like to address here.

First and foremost, there was a bit of a drive-by about a pipeline to the west coast that the Government of Canada has entered an MOU with the Government of Alberta to create. The Premier of Alberta, when that MOU was signed, said that they would bring forward a project in June of this year. That is still on track. There will be a project that is brought forward. I am most certain of that, and the agreement remains firm and stands.

Talking about the timelines set out in that agreement, for one of them, we were a month ahead of schedule. That was on the Impact Assessment Act and on having a single review, which will improve the ability of all projects to move forward. As well, we also reached an agreement on methane a week ahead of schedule, and while we are a couple of weeks behind schedule on the carbon pricing, the details were all agreed to are in the MOU. We are just working out the technical components underneath at this point.

It is a very exciting time for the oil and gas sector. In fact, we are hitting record production again this year, and that record production, it is planned, will grow even further from there.

On the Major Projects Office's other stream of work, I think it is important to note that, while the Major Projects Office is responsible for taking these referrals and moving forward with them, it is not going to then go out into the public and explain every conversation that is occurring. On every single one of those files, there was something that was needed to get it to a point of reality. That is why they were put to the Major Projects Office. Sometimes it was assistance with finding private investments, and sometimes it was regulations, but in all cases, the Major Projects Office is now using those powers and is reviewing the situation to bring forward the ability to get those projects to move forward. It has been a very positive experience for the companies that have been involved in it, and that is important to note.

The last thing I will note about the Major Projects Office is that the Prime Minister also charged it with making sure we can bring overall regulatory improvements into the system. The office has been working on that as well, and it is bringing those things forward to the government for consideration, because we want to make sure that we are building not only in a responsible way, but also in a way that reflects this serious moment we are at, where we need to ensure that Canada can stand on its own two feet in a very challenging global environment.

There are many good signs that I am happy to talk about in my rejoinder. I will leave my comments there at this moment.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick points on that.

What the member failed to mention is that there are no brand new projects at the Major Projects Office. Like I said, these are all projects that were already in existence and were already well advanced in the process of trying to get to the point where they would be starting to build the projects. It is not like they are new projects. The Liberals just want to take credit for work that they never did.

When it comes to the 34% increase in oil production, that is riding the coattails of all the work that happened during the years under the Harper government. There were no less than 16 major pipelines that were built or approved in those time frames, and there were many other smaller projects that were built.

When I go on the Government of Saskatchewan website and look at the well activity over the last number of years, for years now, there has only been a small handful of drilling rigs out in the field trying to drill new wells. Because of the crippling regulations the government has put on those industries, the breadwinner of the entire economy is not able to actually do the things that it does best, and the government is solely responsible for that.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to see what members on both sides take credit for, or not, in the chronology going back 10 years. Those are some long coattails, I would suggest to the member opposite.

The reality is that this is the only government that managed to get a pipe to tidewater. That pipe is now being expanded. That is a major project going on, but let us talk about the Major Projects Office and the nature of those projects. On the first list of major projects activity, which was announced back in September, obviously some of the furthest along were going to be the ones that are best positioned to move forward, but there was also a release of transformational strategies that was provided concurrently. It includes things such as Wind West, the Port of Churchill, and carbon capture and utilization. There are many projects that are brand new and of much excitement for this country and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Indigenous Affairs

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week I raised an issue of deep concern to the people of British Columbia, namely the impact of the B. C. Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada and the impact that the decision has on private property rights.

It is a significant ruling, because it is the first time in Canada's history that a court declared aboriginal title over non-Crown lands, privately owned lands. There have been other aboriginal title cases in British Columbia before, and I am going to highlight one of them, the Tsilhqot’in Nation case of 2014. The court declared aboriginal title over a very large piece of land, 1,750 square kilometres. It was very remote land and it was all Crown land. The Tsilhqot'in plaintiffs in that case were very careful to carve around all the privately held land, so that the claims area was only public land. That was their strategy.

Fast-forward a decade to the current case, and the Cowichan plaintiffs took a different, more aggressive approach. Their claims area does include privately owned lands. We are talking about a relatively small piece of land, not 1,750 square kilometres but 800 acres. It is right in the heart of Metro Vancouver and, as any realtor would say, the three most important things about real estate are "location, location, location".

The morning after the decision, 150 private landowners, farmers, homeowners, businesses and a golf course discovered that their titles were now burdened with the aboriginal title designation. That is what makes this decision so unique. It has never happened before in Canadian history.

This is why I say that the Liberals dropped the ball. Instead of arguing aggressively to defend private property rights, federal counsel, under the direction of then attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould and then prime minister Justin Trudeau, retreated from their strongest legal defence. This is what the court said in paragraph 2096, “Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed November 22, 2018.”

The Liberal strategy was to drop its first and best line of defence, that the Crown's deliberate granting of fee simple title to private individuals throughout British Columbia's history had the effect of extinguishing pre-existing aboriginal title. They did not argue that, making it easy for the trial judge to find that aboriginal title still exists on all parcels, including private lands, within the claim area, and that aboriginal title and privately held fee simple title could co-exist on the same piece of land.

Many legal experts have weighed in on that, saying that it does not work, and asking how two title owners could have exclusive and competing interests over the same title. Who wins?

The judge's answer was that “Aboriginal title is a prior and senior right” to other property interests, whether the land is public or private. That is what has people worried. Who actually owns the land?

I will ask the question again. Will the new Liberal Prime Minister direct the federal lawyers to argue that private property rights in Canada must be secured for homeowners, farmers, businesses and investors?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that the decision to appeal does not diminish our commitment to upholding our legal obligations to indigenous people. With that said, our government disagrees with aspects of the B.C. Supreme Court decision. Preserving the certainty and stability of private property is of utmost importance, and that is why we will advance all viable legal arguments to protect private property.

As this case is before the courts, I will be careful with my remarks. The principle of the validity of fee simple title is foundational to the certainty and stability of property rights in this country. It is a cornerstone of our legal system and of the confidence Canadians seek in land ownership.

The decision of the court has potentially significant implications, including for private property rights. These implications are not limited to one province or one community. They could extend across the country. They touch on questions that go to the heart of how land is owned, transferred and managed in Canada.

Let me emphasize in the strongest terms possible that the decision to appeal does not diminish our commitment to upholding our legal obligations to indigenous people. We respect the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights and title, and we remain fully committed to reconciliation. That commitment is unwavering.

We respect the right of all parties to pursue their own legal strategies. Canada's concern with the decision focuses on specific legal questions. Other parties may seek to have other issues resolved. This is a complex matter, and the courts are the proper forum for resolving these questions. Canadians deserve a fair and impartial resolution. That is what the courts are designed to provide.

This case goes beyond legal arguments; it concerns the framework that underpins our shared future. Canada's approach must be principled, respectful and clear. That is why we are pursuing this appeal, to seek legal clarity and legal certainty that rights are respected and that reconciliation continues to guide our actions.

Our commitment is clear. We will work through the proper legal processes. We will uphold our obligations and we will continue to engage constructively with all parties. That is how we build certainty, stability and trust, values that are essential to Canada's future.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the concern is that the federal lawyers have dropped the extinguishment argument, which was their first and best line of defence, under the misguided concept or idea that reconciliation requires the federal government not to be too aggressive in defending private property rights. That is the concern here, and nothing that the hon. secretary has just mentioned adds any comfort. Of course the government is going to argue. Of course it is going to appeal, but is it going to argue that line of reasoning?

There is a great quote from the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, which was addressing a similar fact situation. They said:

...a declaration of Aboriginal title over privately owned lands, which, by its very nature, gives the Aboriginal beneficiary exclusive possession, occupation, and use would sound the death knell of reconciliation with the interests of non-Aboriginal Canadians.

Does he agree with that statement from the Court of Appeal?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in my remarks, we understand that the decision may cause uncertainty and concern for private landowners. We hear those concerns, and we take them seriously. I reaffirm that our government disagrees with aspects of the B.C. Supreme Court decision, and that is why we are appealing it. The Government of Canada is committed to maintaining legal clarity and stability in land ownership while respecting aboriginal rights and title and the court process. That balance is essential, not only for property owners but for indigenous communities, municipalities and the country as a whole.

The Economy

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our economy, the Liberals are telling Canadians that they have never had it so good, but here are the facts. Under the Liberal government, in the G7, Canada now has the highest household debt, the most unaffordable housing, the lowest investment per worker and the worst food price inflation, double that of the U.S.. Today's Stats Canada report shows that food inflation is once again rising, with the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables hitting a three-year high. Canada has the second-lowest productivity and the second-highest unemployment in the G7.

Almost 100,000 jobs were lost last month, 5,000 of which were from the auto sector. Thousands of spinoff jobs left our country as well. There were job losses in steel and lumber. Our youth unemployment rate is over 14%, and we have the fewest homes per capita in the G7. We have the second-slowest building permit process in the OECD.

I am not done yet. Under the Liberal government, 500 billion dollars' worth of investment has left Canada for the U.S., and twice as many Canadians are opening businesses in the U.S. as are doing so in Canada. The CFIB has said that more businesses have closed than opened. In fact, business closures have outpaced openings for six consecutive quarters, and 55% of small business owners say they would not recommend starting a business right now.

Input costs for our farmers are skyrocketing, especially with the fertilizer tariff the Liberal government put on our farmers. We are the only country in the G7 that has put those tariffs on farmers, and because of that, food prices have gone up. There are 2.2 million food bank visits in a single month. One in ten of those is by a senior, and a quarter are for youth and children. The gap between the rich and the poor is also growing. Sixty per cent of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque, only $200 away from bankruptcy. From the new numbers that came out today, we see that inflation is rising once again.

Canada used to be a happy nation. Canadians were happy people, but under the Liberal government, we went from the fifth-happiest 10 years ago to the 18th-happiest last year. Since the Prime Minister took office, we have become the 25th‑happiest in the world, so Canadians are not happy with the direction this country is going, yet the Prime Minister stood in the House and said, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.”

Can the member tell me, beyond the Liberal insiders and Liberal elites who are getting rich from government contracts, do Liberals really feel that affordability has been the best since 2015?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to elaborate on what the government is doing to help Canadians with their day-to-day costs.

We know that Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering it. The government is providing help to more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians to afford day-to-day necessities through the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Specifically, we are providing a one-time top-up to be paid on June 5, which is equal to a 50% increase to the annual 2025-26 value of the GST credit. This will deliver $3.1 billion in immediate assistance to 12 million Canadians who currently get the GST credit. We are also increasing the value of the benefit by 25% for five years, starting in July 2026. This will deliver $8.6 billion in additional support over the next five years.

Combined, these measures mean that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 annually for the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 annually for the next four years.

The benefit is only one example of the many ways the government has the backs of Canadians. It is in addition to the existing benefits, such as the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit and the guaranteed income supplement. We are fulfilling the pledge to make life even more affordable for families.

Canada's new government is also using the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with the higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective today, April 20, until August 31, 2026, delivering over $2.2 billion in relief for Canadians. This temporary suspension of excise tax for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre fuel tank.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is so out of touch with the reality of what Canadian families are facing. The member talked about temporary pauses, temporary measures and one-time tax breaks. I always welcome a tax break. It is the people's money and the money should be going back into their pockets.

However, the Liberals had a chance this week to remove all federal taxes on fuel, but instead of going all the way, they just took off one tax, the excise tax. Their plan saves 10¢ a litre. The Conservative plan would have saved 25¢ a litre or $1,200 for the average family, and that is what we are calling for. We are calling for a full tax exemption on fuel, all federal taxes, in 2026.

The sad reality is that Canadians are struggling. They are struggling to put food on the table. Seniors are skipping meals. Kids have their milk watered down. Will the Liberal member tell us what measures they are taking to support families who are struggling in Canada today?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Mr. Speaker, by easing the financial strain on households, our government is empowering Canadians to shape a better future for their families and our country. This includes the $150-million food security fund through the regional tariff response initiative for small and medium-sized businesses and the organizations that support them. This measure will help businesses absorb the costs associated with supply chain disruptions without passing the burden on to Canadians.

Our government is taking bold actions right now to support the many Canadians who are feeling the financial sting of everyday expenses. Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering.