Debates of June 15th, 2026

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for London—Fanshawe's observations are completely accurate. We have a government here that has been sitting around for 11 years watching the decline of a country and, in many cases, managing the decline of a country. People naturally are increasingly frustrated by a status quo that is not working and is not serving the best interests of our people.

We have seen members opposite sit there, heckle, laugh and high-five each other while things keep getting worse for the average middle-class family. I would like to see them show any sense of contrition or learn from their mistakes. Alas, I have not seen that evidence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan.

If the motion before the House, which we are considering today, is passed unamended, it will force a major fiscal bill through committee, cut off clause-by-clause review after only 30 minutes, deem amendments moved without meaningful debate, skip real report stage consideration, limit third reading to only a handful of speeches and restrict ordinary procedural tools after 6.30 p.m., while preserving special flexibility for cabinet ministers, but not for regular members of Parliament.

That would be a lot, and it would not be a minor adjustment to the parliamentary calendar. It would be a serious and unconscionable shift in power away from Parliament and toward the executive. That is why I rise today to support the amendments and ask the government to reconsider its current plans to ram this important legislation through the House.

Bill C-30 is broad. It would impact taxation, excise duties, fuel taxes, alcohol duties, housing-related rules, labour mobility, worker ownership, greenhouse building, banking payments, transportation information, employment measures, food inspection, pesticides and other areas of federal law. A bill of that breadth deserves Parliament's full attention. The government is asking the House to accept the appearance of scrutiny while bypassing proper review.

If the world is in crisis and if Canada is at a crossroads where we are attempting to do big things fast, to diversify our economy and our trade relationships, then we cannot afford to get this wrong. We need the best ideas to rise to the top, and that is the role of opposition. That is the role of committee. That is the role of clause-by-clause study. There is no boardroom table in a successful company that I know of where no dissent is allowed, where shortcuts get the best results or where the fastest policies are the best policies.

Clause-by-clause study matters. It is where members examine the actual words of the bill, not the press release around it. It is where we ask officials what a clause would do, how it would work, who it would affect and what would happen if were misused. It is where amendments are proposed and can be explained, tested and improved. It is where witnesses, members and sometimes the public catch drafting problems, unintended consequences and overly broad powers before they become law. That is not obstruction. That is how the best ideas rise to the top.

Under the motion, the committee would meet at 9 a.m., and, if clause-by-clause were not finished by 9:30 a.m., the remaining amendments would be deemed moved and then are voted on without further debate. This motion is a stopwatch, and in a time of global crisis, Canada cannot afford stopwatch law-making. The government's inability to manage a legislative agenda is not the opposition's crisis, no matter how much the government tries to bully us into submission.

This week, I spent some time at the public safety committee, examining witnesses about a Liberal subamendment to a Bloc amendment that related to privacy concerns that had been expressed to me by numerous people in my community. Others did the same. By the end of the interventions, we all understood and supported the clause as amended and subamended, and we had explained it in committee in a way that should reassure those watching from home that the clause would not cause undue harm to people's privacy. That is the kind of collaboration the government claims it wants, and when it comes to Canadians' privacy, it is what we all need, so why the government is shutting it down here in the House is beyond me.

The motion would short-circuit report stage. Then, at third reading, it would allow only a very limited number of speeches. Members do not come here as ornaments, here to decorate the government's bills with a few words. We come here to bring the lived and living experiences of Canadians into the policy choices that are before this country. When debate is reduced to a few speeches, those voices are marginalized. Canadians lose the benefit of having competing arguments tested before a vote takes place. In an unstable, volatile world, there is all the more reason for Parliament to take its time to make sure that Canada gets its policies right.

The proposed amendments would let the committee continue its work and protect the stages of review that help Parliament separate strong policy from weak policy before a law is passed. Some parts of Bill C‑30 deserve much closer public scrutiny than they are going to get, because they raise serious concerns about how the government now thinks about power.

One of the most troubling examples is the proposed change to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. Buried in this spring economic update bill is a power that would allow cabinet, by order, to exempt persons, things or activities from the application of laws or regulations administered or enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In plain English, cabinet could create exemptions from food and agricultural rules for up to three years, and then extend them for another three years. That means there could be a possible six-year exemption from rules that exist to protect Canadians, our food supply, our producers, our markets and our public confidence.

Canadians should not have to guess about questions like, “What is an unreasonable risk? Who makes the decisions, and on what evidence? What notice would Canadians receive and what recourse would they have if the power were used badly?” Food safety should not depend on vague language and cabinet decisions. Those are all questions that I will never get to ask because of the way the government is planning to ram through this bill.

Canadians expect food safety rules to be clear, public, stable and enforced. They expect science, inspection and accountability. They do not expect broad exemption powers to be tucked into a budget-style bill and rushed through committee.

That same concern appears in the proposed changes to the Pest Control Products Act. Those provisions would allow cabinet to authorize or reinstate the use of a pest control product, even after the responsible minister has determined that the environmental risks are not acceptable, if cabinet decides that the product is needed for economic or food security. That should make every member pause. The regulatory process could say an environmental risk is unacceptable, and cabinet could still step in and permit the product. There may be rare, emergency cases when flexibility is needed, and reasonable people can accept that, but emergency powers should be narrow, clearly defined, transparent, time-limited and subject to strong oversight. They should not be drafted so broadly that Parliament is asked to trust cabinet first and ask questions later.

These two brief examples demonstrate why clause-by-clause matters and why committees matter. Canadians need more than abstract, procedural debates. We need safeguards. We ought to make space for members to find provisions such as these, ask what they mean, test the government's explanations, hear from officials and affected groups and improve the law before Canadians have to live with it. A government that is confident in its agenda should be willing to explain it, defend its legislation line by line and accept amendments that add clarity, accountability and limits.

Canadians should pay attention, because the kinds of motions we are debating here today are becoming a trend. Too often, the government seems to believe that if it has the power to do something, that is reason enough to do it. That is not how responsible government works. Just because a government can use a procedure to limit scrutiny, it does not mean that it should. The House of Commons is not an inconvenience in the legislative process, and it ought not be treated as such. It is the central democratic forum of this country, where public money is authorized, laws are tested, ministers are held to account and the executive must answer questions before it changes the lives of Canadians. The Prime Minister should be willing to propose and defend his vision for Canada here, in this chamber, reserved for commoners. We are everyday Canadians who deserve answers.

The government has the votes and the procedural tools to force this through, but just because it can, it does not mean that it should. A serious government should not ask members to vote first and understand later. For those reasons, I urge all members of this House to support these amendments. I urge the House to reject this shortcut, protect Parliament's role and allow Bill C‑30 to receive the scrutiny it deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I need to preface this before I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, in case anyone has forgotten how unlikely it is that I am deeply grateful to her for her work, her diligence and her ability to analyze legislation. It still breaks my heart to hear “The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith” and not have it be Green Party member Paul Manly.

I have to pay tribute to this member. Every word she just said was excellent. We should be listening. Her words, “vote first and understand later”, should be put up in neon lights as the defining words of this session.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the leader of the Green Party in her overall assessment, not to mention the member who just spoke. How selective they are in not recognizing that if we were to listen to either one of the members, the legislative process would grind to a halt and nothing would pass. The leader of the Green Party knows that. She can say what she wants, but at the end of the day, there have been many games over the last number of months that clearly demonstrate that.

All one needs to do is look at the games that were played just last week, when we had the official opposition, the Conservative Party, agree to sit late and, literally a couple of hours later, vote to adjourn. The silliness we see from across the way prevents legislation. This government is saying we are going to serve Canadians by passing legislation, whether the Conservatives like it or not.

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

Mr. Speaker, actually, all I need to do is look at what happened in this House with Bill C‑3. It is a bill that went to committee. The committee treated it seriously and amended it. The bill came back to the House, and the government showed what it thought of committees. It rejected all of the amendments and used its majority to ram it through. Now we have a situation where there are advertisements in the United States, with companies saying, “You can find a connection to Canada.” We are going to have a big backlog. Americans are suddenly discovering that we have the health care and the country they want.

I do not even know what to say. The government does not respect the parliamentary process or committees, and it is going to have unintended consequences.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment and then a question for my colleague, whom I thank for her speech.

I will add my thoughts on this democratic issue. While the government was busy manufacturing its majority, it did not accept any of the 11 recommendations from the Bloc Québécois. In such a context, the government should have talked to us and listened to us. However, this government has a tendency to move further and further away from listening and from democracy.

Now, here is my question for my colleague. In terms of the measure in the economic statement on suspending the excise tax on gasoline, some economic experts, including Luc Godbout from Quebec, maintain that it is not a good decision, from the perspective of both a balanced budget and the environment. At a time when we need to invest in our infrastructure and social programs, we just deprived ourselves of a source of revenue.

Moreover, experts are saying that there is a risk of forest fires this summer because of climate change and global warming.

What does my colleague think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I brought up two examples in my speech, and here is another one. There is so much substance in this bill to consider. There are recommendations. There are experts whom we need to hear from, but we will not have the opportunity to do that.

As every member on the opposition side has made the point, over and over again, that this is a bill that requires more scrutiny and more consideration, the government members have stood up and accused us of all kinds of things in order to ram their bill through.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

First of all, I want to give a shout-out to Stanley Cup champion and Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola product, Logan Stankoven. We are so proud of Logan for winning the Stanley Cup.

To my hon colleague, the member for Winnipeg North talked about playing games. Is this not the government that shut off the cameras in four committees the moment it got a majority? I ask my colleague, who is playing games?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was in committee when the first vote happened after the government received its majority. Members can look at the tapes. I sat there and said, “We are going to go upstairs, and when we come back down here, the government is going to use its majority to end the conversation in this committee,” and that is exactly what it did.

This is not a government that is starting conversations. It is a government that is ending conversations.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate on Government Business No. 12 on the spring economic update.

A lot has changed since the spring economic update. The most recent PBO report says the government has slowing growth, a larger than promised deficit, a weakening fiscal outlook and a 1% chance of meeting the government's own fiscal anchor. That has all happened since the last spring economic update.

We are debating Government Business No. 12, and it feels like Groundhog Day. Every time the Liberals bring a closure motion forward, the member for Winnipeg North gets up and says the Conservatives are blocking and filibustering. It is an example of the far-left ideology over there. It is always someone else's fault. There is always a reason why they did not get the job done. If Liberal legislation did not get passed, it is the Conservatives' fault. If the Liberals cannot meet any of their economic targets, it is Donald Trump's fault. If the Liberals cannot get trade deals done, its the fault of the global crisis. There is always something to blame for why the Liberals never follow through on their promises. If they cannot get houses built, it is the municipalities' fault. If they cannot get more trade deals, perhaps it is the Easter bunny's fault. I do not know. The Liberals always have someone to blame, and that is the far left in a nutshell. It is never, ever their fault.

One thing I want to talk about when it comes to ideology is child care in Saskatchewan. This is the Liberals' flagship. This is their baby. They thought it would change the lives of parents. I want to talk about the latest report on child care in Saskatchewan, which says 92% of people in Saskatchewan say it is difficult to find child care. Families are being told that child care is more affordable, but affordability does not matter if there is no availability. The report goes on to say that so many communities in my home province of Saskatchewan are being called child care deserts. There are simply not enough day care spaces. Get this. It further says the people the Liberals pretend to care about and want to help are the ones who are hurt the hardest. It is often the parents who need flexibility the most. The nurses, first responders, retail workers and anyone working evenings, weekends or shift work are left without options.

This is what the Conservatives talked about all along when the Liberals brought forward their child care program. We said parents need choice. Make it the parent's choice. Allow private day cares to stay open. Allow parents to have the choice of where they want their children to go. Supplement public day care with private day care so that there are more spaces. The Liberals promised to build 255,000 day care spaces, and they have only made 65% of that target. Shame on them for over-promising once again and leaving parents holding the bag.

There are a few other things I want to talk about that were in the spring economic update but never materialized in Saskatchewan. When the people in Saskatchewan look at the spring economic update, what do they not see? They do not see funding for the Snowbirds. It took the Liberals only 10 years to ground the Snowbirds program in Saskatchewan. The iconic Snowbirds are housed in Moose Jaw. The aerial acrobat team is the pride of Canada, and it took the Liberals only 10 years to ground it. They are going to over-promise and over-commit once again. They promised to have the Snowbirds flying by 2030. I do not think that is going to happen, and I do not think anyone on these benches thinks the Snowbirds are going to be flying any time soon. A lack of preparation and planning by the Liberals caused that.

Let us talk about what else is not in the spring economic update for Saskatchewan. There is no money for the RCMP Heritage Centre. It is in my home riding of Regina—Lewvan. The Liberals have promised money since 2015 to help the RCMP Heritage Centre become a national museum. They promised it in the 2015 campaign, the 2019 campaign, the 2021 campaign and the 2025 campaign. It was in their platform, and they still have not followed through on the commitment to make the RCMP Heritage Centre a national museum. That is a shame, because it does wonderful work and tells the stories of our brave men and women in uniform. That is something that should be done sooner rather than later. I hope they follow through on that commitment, because they promised it time and time again and they have never delivered.

Another thing in the spring economic update that would not help Saskatchewan is the closing of agriculture research stations in Scott and Indian Head. I do not know when the Liberals became the anti-science party. I do not know why they do not want to believe in the science of agriculture across our communities. The research stations are so important because there are four different types of soil in Saskatchewan. That is why there is one in Scott, one in Indian Head and a federal research station in Swift Current. They do different experiments on these different soil types.

If the Liberals close two of these research stations, they are going to throw away decades of research that has been done to help the soil become more fertile and to help us make sure we have better crop varieties. They do not say much about the fact they have cut funding to research stations. They do not talk about the cuts they have made, and there are so many more places where the Liberals have wasted billions of dollars. Then they decide to cut the Snowbirds and the agriculture research stations, and not fund their commitments to the RCMP heritage museum that they have promised time and again.

The last thing I would say, and this has been really quiet on the Liberal front, is that the government is talking about the potential of selling airports, which I find is a very interesting strategy coming from the Liberal side. The Regina airport is located in Regina—Lewvan. I do not know what the Liberals do not like about Regina—Lewvan, but I hope they will come visit. We would give them a tour so they could see a lot more of this beautiful part of the city in Regina, Saskatchewan. I invite them all to come out. They could see—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting point from the Liberal across the way. I wonder, if I crossed the floor, if the Liberals would fund the RCMP Heritage Centre.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we hear them cheering that, yes, they would. They tricked one of the Conservatives by promising to fund something in their riding. That is how the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong got tricked into moving over to the Liberal side. She was promised money from the housing minister. I find it very interesting that the Liberals are willing to try to buy people.

I will tell my friend across the way a little story. My daughter saw some of the comments with respect to floor crossing, and she asked me if I would ever cross the floor. I told her that I would not in a million years. She said, “Good. I'll still be proud of you.” There is the saying “from the mouths of babes”. Even 11-year-olds know that we should really keep our word all the time.

I think sometimes we get the most truth when we talk to young people across the country. That is what the Liberals have lost in the economic update as well: the fact that young people are struggling more each and every day. The fact that the vast majority of young people in Canada do not believe they are ever going to afford a home is not good enough for our country. We need to do better for young people.

The fact that 2.2 million people go to food banks in this country, which is the breadbasket of the world, is not good enough. A vast majority of those people going to food banks are children, young people and students. The fact that people are languishing on wait-lists for years in the health care system is unacceptable. The fact that we gave $1.6 billion to failed asylum claimants for health care benefits but we do not look after seniors who need hip and knee replacements is unacceptable.

One thing I want to get to before I wrap up is the fact that when we say that Canada can be better, and when we question if the Liberals are doing good enough for Canadians, they call us unpatriotic. That is unacceptable. The Liberal government is not Canada. Every member of the chamber loves our country, but we think our country can do a heck of a lot better than it is doing right now.

We are the only G7 country in a recession, and the blame lies at the Prime Minister's feet. He promised the world he could deal with Donald Trump. There is a video that says this. That was an absolute crock. The Prime Minister has failed at every promise he has made. He promised to build at speeds not seen in generations. That is not true. He said he would deal with Donald Trump. That is not true. He said he would make sure that the budget was balanced. That is not true.

Do members remember when Stephen Harper said that budgets are like potato chips and that one cannot not have just one? It has been 11 years of straight deficit budgets that keep getting bigger, and Canadians are left holding the bag.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member was critical of the parliamentary secretary. He was suggesting that the parliamentary secretary was inaccurate when he said that Conservatives are just filibustering everything. He tried to make the offer that Conservatives come here in good faith.

We can look at Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. The reality is that it is a bill that passed the House unanimously, passed committee unanimously and ultimately passed the House unanimously, yet we still had to move time allocation on it. Even with a bill they completely and fully supported, the Conservatives would not let it go through the House. It is a little bit much for the member to stand up and suggest that we are the ones accusing them of games, when, in reality, he knows full well that Conservatives are playing games on every bill, including the bills they support.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to debate back and forth with my colleague, because, as I said, we helped the Liberals pass Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act. We needed it. We co-operated. They needed it to make the economy stronger, but they have not used the bill once. Even when we are trying to help them grow the economy, they fail.

I will take no lessons from the colleague across the way. We will do our job and study legislation, but when we do help, they still cannot get the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech.

I heard all of his demands for his province of Saskatchewan that Ottawa has not listened to. I heard him list the things that Saskatchewan is asking for and not getting. I have a serious question for him about something that is bothering me.

The Conservatives often talk about reducing the deficit, as my colleague mentioned, and being responsible with public funds. Our party is constantly condemning the subsidies for oil and gas companies. We see these companies raking in huge profits these days, practically record profits.

Why are my colleague and his party not speaking out about the public funds going into the oil and gas companies' pockets?

Could that money not be put to better use addressing Saskatchewanians' needs?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many ways the Liberals have wasted money. I can talk about the $300 million in PrescribeIT. I can talk about the tens of billions of dollars given to third party consultants and about the growing size of bureaucracy. If they hire more consultants, they should not have to have a larger bureaucracy. We can talk about the millions, even billions, of dollars sent out of the country in international aid, which is probably on an ideological basis not on a humanitarian basis. There are a lot of areas where there is money wasted by the government. I want to make sure that those are cut and that the provinces remain full.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the hon. member brought up the Snowbirds, because this past weekend, the Barrie Airshow was held. There were 150,000 people who attended the air show. I was fortunate that I had the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan come to Barrie, because he has been leading the fight to keep the Snowbirds flying. He heard from a lot of people how disappointed they were that the Snowbirds have actually been cancelled. The main concern is that this five-year hiatus may turn to six years, to 10 years and then to their never returning.

I am wondering what the hon. member would do to keep the Snowbirds flying.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly heartbreaking that, under the Liberals, the Snowbirds are going to be grounded. I remember, as a young kid, our driving to Moose Jaw from our farm in Rush Lake and watching air shows for the Snowbirds. Seeing those planes in the sky was a special moment. In Barrie, 150,000 people got to see that for the last time.

The fact that the Liberals did not have a plan to make sure that the Snowbirds could keep flying and had proper jets to keep flying is a damnation on their record. They had 11 years to make a plan, and they failed. That is why we are not going to have the Snowbirds for the foreseeable future. We would do whatever we could and help them in any way to make sure we could get planes so the Snowbirds could keep flying. It is just really sad for our Canadian identity and our Canadian heritage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just over a year—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South is rising on a point of order.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 57, under closure, no member may speak more than once. I believe that the recognition of the member is out of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I would just note that the member is correct. A member cannot speak more than once on one motion, but I believe the parliamentary secretary has not yet spoken to the subamendment, which we are now debating. He would have spoken to the amendment.

The parliamentary secretary has the floor.