Debates of June 3rd, 2026

Steel and Aluminum Industry

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, steel is not just another commodity in a trade ledger. Steel is the backbone of our economy. It builds our bridges, our transit systems, our housing, our energy projects and our manufacturing capacity. It is quite simply economic sovereignty in physical form, and if we cannot make it here, we are not economically sovereign.

Steelworkers were in Ottawa recently to remind the government of that reality, and they were very clear. They did not come for photo ops; they came for a plan. They came for a national steel strategy, because steelworkers know something the government too often forgets: We do not build national economies by shutting out the people who actually do the work, the people who actually build.

The United Steelworkers are calling for a comprehensive national steel industrial strategy, one that invests in domestic capacity, that strengthens supply chains and that protects good union jobs across this country. They are joined by the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents over three million workers who have been equally clear that workers must be at the table when decisions are being made about their futures. Right now, that is not what we are seeing. We are seeing CEOs and political insiders included in advisory structures. We are seeing labour excluded or minimized, and we are seeing the very people who built this economy treated as an afterthought in the decisions that shape it.

That raises a simple question for me: How can the government claim to stand with workers while locking them out of the room?

We have seen what happens when we invest in Canadian steel capacity. In Sault Ste. Marie, recent steel investments that were supported by the United Steelworkers and Local 2251 helped modernize production, and that is a great step, but it is a one-off. That is not a strategy, and what we need in this country is a strategy to move us forward. When steel is strong, the communities in which steelworkers work are strong, and when steel is weakened, everything else follows.

I asked the government two simple questions. Will it work with the United Steelworkers to develop and implement a comprehensive national steel strategy? Why has it excluded labour, specifically the USW and the Canadian Labour Congress, from the CUSMA advisory council? Of course, we were happy to see that Unifor was included in that, but for the three million Canadians represented by the Canadian Labour Congress, not having the CLC at that table is a very big oversight.

We are in a period of extraordinary trade instability. Tariffs and trade disruptions from the United States are not theoretical. They are real, and they are already hurting Canadian workers. That does not mean things on a spreadsheet. That means people not being able to pay their mortgage, not being able to pay their bills and not knowing where their next paycheque is coming from.

We need to see more urgency, we need to see more action and we need to see the government recognize the impact this is having on Canadian workers.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to comments by the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona regarding the buy Canadian policy and the use of Canadian materials in public projects.

We have taken decisive and unprecedented action to help Canadian steel and aluminum producers secure a larger share of the Canadian market. With that in mind, one key element of our response to U.S. tariffs is to ensure that, moving forward, we become our own best customer. We are therefore prioritizing Canadian steel and aluminum in government procurement contracts through our buy Canadian policy. This policy ensures that federal spending prioritizes Canadian suppliers. For example, Canadian steel and aluminum will be used in future infrastructure projects, including ports, bridges and energy projects.

The government's buy Canadian policy stimulates our economy while supporting local businesses and workers. By gearing government contracts to Canadian businesses, we keep investments in our country, support small and medium-sized businesses and strengthen supply chain resilience. This approach helps create good-paying jobs, encourages local production and reduces dependence on unstable global markets. It also ensures that taxpayer dollars provide communities with maximum benefits, while fostering sustainable and reliable production. It is worth noting that this approach does not mean we are closing our borders. Rather, it means we are building a stronger, more independent economy that puts Canada on the road to long-term prosperity and shared growth.

To further facilitate this transition, notably through the $5-billion strategic response fund, we are supporting companies that are shifting their production to Canadian supply chains. This program will provide Canadian steel and aluminum companies with the support they need to manufacture products that are in demand in the domestic market but are not yet produced here. Furthermore, in a trade environment marked by growing protectionism, the ongoing need for investment in defence equipment manufacturing and critical infrastructure is helping Canadian companies shift their production to meet domestic needs.

Our government remains focused on stimulating domestic demand so that Canadian businesses and workers in the steel and aluminum sectors can maintain and expand their operations. Above all, we will continue to support Canadian workers and businesses affected by the instability caused by the arbitrary and unfair tariffs imposed by the U.S. government.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that response shows that the government is not acting with the urgency that workers require. Instead of a place at the table, and instead of an actual strategy, the government is giving announcements without accountability and consultations without inclusion, and it is getting public dollars without finding guarantees.

This is why New Democrats are very clear: Every federal dollar spent to support Canadian industry must come with enforceable conditions, not voluntary commitments and not good intentions, but legal and binding protections for Canadian jobs, Canadian production and Canadian workers. There must be no more blank cheques to corporations and broken promises to workers. If taxpayers take the risk, workers deserve the return. This is not radical. This is basic accountability.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government remains in constant communication with businesses and workers in the steel and aluminum industries.

On April 29, the Prime Minister's new Advisory Committee on Canada-U.S. Economic Relations held its first meeting. This forum will help us better understand the impact of the situation and strengthen our ability to respond to future developments.

While quick responses remain important in the short term, our government will continue to work with industry to develop long-term strategies that build resilience, support workers and position Canadian businesses to succeed in an ever-changing and competitive North American market.

We will always protect Canadian interests and promote stable, predictable and fair international trade.

Health

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight because, on May 6, I asked the Liberal Minister of Health how much more money she was planning on giving Canada Health Infoway, given that it had blown $300 million on PrescribeIT for no tangible benefit to the taxpayer. She answered that the CEO of Canada Health Infoway's “behaviour was [totally] unacceptable”, and that is why she asked the board of directors to fire him. Then she said that she was going to give Canada Health Infoway another $50 million this year. I will say, I am grateful that she gave a clear-cut, numerical answer rather than dodging the question. That is commendable. However, that clear-cut, numerical answer was totally unacceptable.

Why would she give such a backward organization another $50 million this year? That is my question.

I have a bit more time, so I want to say that I took the unprecedented step tonight of emailing this question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Health's staff. I would never break the rules in this place and comment on the presence or absence of another member; however, I do want to share that I have a terrible feeling that I will be disappointed and that neither of them will answer my question tonight.

When this organization came to health committee, I asked its chair, after $4 billion had been pumped into this organization, after 20 years, could he name one tangible program, something it managed, directed, built or designed, that is currently benefiting taxpayers? He could not. He only said that it rolled out a lot of federal funding, answering in vague platitudes.

It seems to me that Canada Health Infoway has become a slush fund. The Liberals shovel money at it and then Liberal insiders shovel money around, including to lobbying firms such as Crestview Strategy and, I think, Summer Strategies was the other one. Obviously, it is badly run. The Liberals say it is independent, but then the health minister calls it up and gets the CEO fired.

Why would they give such a backward organization another $50 million this year?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not disappointed that I am providing an answer or a perspective on a very important issue.

There is a big difference between the Conservatives' approach and the government's approach in dealing with the important issue of health care. The issue the government has been attempting to deal with is something that incorporates the Internet and AI and includes many different stakeholders. The purpose of it is to see how we can deliver a better service to Canadians in the whole area of health care.

I had the opportunity to visit a doctor or two over the last six months, and I found it quite intriguing to see a doctor pull up information on his computer, make a prescription request and see the medications I have received. When people go from one doctor's office to another doctor's office and then to a pharmacy, I suspect they are all getting very similar information, information that is advantageous to the consumer or client, the individual receiving it.

I say that because I think it is important for us to recognize that as we advance through technology, there is a role for a national government to look at ways it could potentially complement or, in many ways, lead the reforms or manage the changes that are necessary in order to deliver the quality of health care that Canadians expect and deserve. That means, at times, that when we take that leadership role, if there is no take-up on it from other jurisdictions, provinces in particular, at some point in time, we need to recognize that we might have to change what the initial objectives might have been. It does not take away from the fact that the government does have a responsibility in delivering, as much as possible, and contributing to the best health care system we can have.

What I see in this whole program is something a little different from what the member is putting on the table. I see a government that has recognized that the federal government does have an obligation to provide, where it can, some leadership on important files. I am sure if the member were to consult with his constituents, he would find that his constituents, like mine, want a national government to show where there are opportunities for technology. Even though it might not have developed to the degree we would have liked to see in terms of the buy-in, I believe that at the end of the day, we will have a stronger health care system because there will be other entities, whether territories or provinces, that will be able to reflect on what Ottawa was attempting to do and learn from it in different ways.

I would suggest that there are many different stakeholders in our health care system, whether they are pharmacists, clients or doctors, and at the end of the day we all have a way to contribute in managing the changes that are necessary to ensure that we have first-quality health care. At times, there might—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's first question, I am terribly disappointed. That was no answer at all.

I know my constituents very well. I am from the Waterloo region. It is the tech capital of Canada. My constituents, those who work in tech, would love to get a $50-million contract to do nothing. This organization, after 20 years and $4 billion, has done nothing tangible. I am asking the government why it is giving this organization another $50 million, and the member could not point to anything it is going to do. It is going to look at some things. He went to his doctor's office and the doctor was using technology. I am a doctor, and doctors use technology without Canada Health Infoway blowing $50 million on lobbying firms to tell us to use it.

The government needs to stop it. My constituents beg the government to stop it. Do not give this $50 million away. Give it back to taxpayers, build hospitals or hire nurses with it, but stop doing this, please.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many different things the federal government does in terms of improving the quality of health care for Canadians. The member said to build hospitals. We actually have a capital fund of $5 billion that is going to be out there to assist provinces in doing just what the member is suggesting. For example, I have talked about the Seven Oaks General Hospital and the Victoria Hospital re-establishing emergency services.

I compliment the member for providing medical services to his constituents and beyond. I think we need to start thinking of ways, as I am sure the member would acknowledge, for us to reform, make changes and demonstrate leadership in our health care area. If we are not prepared to manage the changes that are needed into the future, we will not be able to deliver the type of quality health care Canadians want to see. I am sure he would recognize that fact.

It does not mean that every area is going to be laid out in a perfect form. I just believe that, at the end of the day, it is important, whether it is the federal government or provincial government, that we look at ways to incorporate technology and use the technology—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

Indigenous Affairs

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister a simple question: Will the Liberal government defend the private property rights of British Columbians in response to the Cowichan decision, yes or no? The member for Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby said that Conservatives, myself included, were fearmongering. However, British Columbians were not imagining what was happening. Real people and real businesses are already feeling the consequences of the Cowichan decision. Real estate deals have been abandoned. The provincial government has had to backstop mortgages, and investment is draining out of British Columbia. A survey from the Business Council of British Columbia found that almost 74% of B.C. businesses plan to decrease investment due to uncertainty over DRIPA, which is the provincial equivalent of the federal UNDRIP legislation; 73% said it is harder to access external financing; and one in three respondents said they are reducing hiring plans.

The CEO of Wesbild Holdings said to Global News, “If you asked us today whether we’re going to invest in land in B.C., the answer is no.” In March, the Vancouver Sun reported that property values in Richmond could decrease by up to 40%. For many families, that means their home, their biggest asset, is suddenly at risk. This is not theoretical. Business owners and homeowners are facing the consequences of the government's refusal or denial to prioritize and protect fee simple titles.

Last week, the government could have made a commitment to defend private property and remove previous instructions to its lawyers. Instead, it left British Columbia in further uncertainty, sending a signal that Canada is becoming a riskier place to invest. Thankfully, the Supreme Court refused to hear the New Brunswick Wolastoqey Nation case.

Conservatives will continue to push the government to pursue a policy and a legal position that protects private property rights for all British Columbians.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by pointing out that the Government of Canada will be in a much better position to speak publicly once we have formally submitted our arguments for the appeal. The Cowichan case remains before the courts, and it is important that all members of the House, including me, speak carefully and responsibly while that process is under way.

I will emphasize that keeping private property predictable and stable is our priority. We are carefully considering all viable arguments on the appeal to protect private property rights while also respecting the Constitution.

I recognize the uncertainty and concern many Canadians might be feeling right now, particularly private property owners in British Columbia. We hear those concerns and are working to get the clarity that everyone in Canada is deserves. Private property ownership is a foundational part of Canada's legal system. It gives people predictability and confidence in their homes and businesses. It is important to Canadians, it is important to our economy, and it is important to all of us.

All parties to the decision are seeking greater clarity from the courts as its interpretation and implications are clarified. To gain that clarity, the Government of Canada's grounds for appeal are focusing on specific legal questions.

We are also hoping to gain additional clarity through the Montrose application, which seeks to reopen the trial in a limited way and add Montrose as a party to the proceedings. The Montrose application was heard by the British Columbia Supreme Court on May 25 and 26, 2026. Justice Young has reserved her decision, and there is no indication of when she will give her decision.

Canada's response is consistent with the position it took in 2017 when Canada applied for private landowners within the claim area to be made aware of the case. It is important that parties that may be affected by the court's decision have an opportunity to be heard. Private landowners are best placed to share any uncertainty they are feeling arising from the decisions that could impact them.

If the Montrose application is successful, it would allow Montrose to participate formally in the proceedings as a party or intervenor, and it would reopen portions of the trial so evidence and perspectives related to the impacts of the ruling on Montrose can be considered by the court. It would also introduce evidence that was not before the court during the trial.

Our approach going forward continues to be grounded in respect and constructive dialogue with all parties. This is the foundation for both advancing reconciliation and addressing further uncertainty. This approach is also how we negotiate on modern treaties and self-government agreements with first nations. These types of agreements provide clarity, stability and long-term predictability for everyone. Importantly, these measures provide a path forward that respects privately owned property while addressing land claims responsibly.

We will keep working to gain the needed clarity that the member opposite seeks and that, I am sure, all British Columbians and all Canadians seek from the courts to build a future grounded in respect, stability and lasting predictability for everyone.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his response this evening. I am glad he raised the Montrose application.

What is problematic is that when the court case commenced, it was only the City of Richmond and not the Government of Canada that explicitly made arguments in favour of fee simple land. Part of the uncertainty today is because the Government of Canada did not make those arguments or use the language that even the parliamentary secretary is using this evening in favour of property rights.

My hope for British Columbia is that the Government of Canada revises its legal arguments with the opportunity from the Montrose application and stands firmly in favour of private property rights to move Canada's economy forward and improve exports out of British Columbia, which are in question as a result of this case.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern.

As I said in the remarks I have given here tonight, we understand that the decision may cause uncertainty and concern for private landowners. People want to know what this means for their homes, their communities and their futures. We hear those concerns, and we take them very seriously. Keeping private property predictable and stable is fundamental, and we will advance all viable arguments in court to protect it. Our goal is to advance reconciliation in a practical and responsible way that both respects indigenous rights and also gives property owners confidence and peace of mind.

We will keep working collaboratively with all parties to the litigation and remain available to them throughout this process.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:16 p.m.)