Questions and comments.
The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona has the floor.
House of Commons Hansard #142 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was project.
House of Commons Hansard #142 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was project.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Building Canada Strong Act Second reading of Bill C-39. The bill seeks to enhance economic competitiveness by streamlining infrastructure approvals and modernizing trade corridors. Liberals argue these changes strengthen supply chains and improve efficiency. Conversely, the Conservatives claim the proposal is all talk, no results, creating bureaucracy without delivering tangible projects. The Bloc Québécois opposes the legislation, characterizing it as an ecological betrayal that undermines environmental assessments and weakens workers' rights through expanded ministerial powers. 18900 words, 2 hours.
Criminal Code Second reading of Bill C-218. The bill, C-218, aims to indefinitely exclude patients with mental disorders from eligibility for medical assistance in dying. Conservatives argue the legislation is essential to prevent suicide and prioritize recovery, while the Bloc Québécois criticizes the exclusion as discriminatory. Liberals emphasize the legal complexity and personal nature of end-of-life decisions, while proponents urge Parliament to restore hope and care. 6900 words, 1 hour.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Questions and comments.
The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona has the floor.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor, the United Steelworkers, Teamsters Canada and other unions representing millions of workers across this country have told the government very clearly that Bill C-39's new powers would undermine the fundamental right of workers to strike, to withhold their labour.
These organizations participated in the Liberals' sham consultations. They raised these concerns directly, and yet the government proceeded with legislation that would give the minister extraordinary new powers to intervene in a legal strike. Why did the minister ignore the warnings from Canada's labour movement, and will he commit to removing these new powers from Bill C-39?
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows, we have in the Canada Labour Code today section 107, which is relatively unfettered. This bill would put in place specific guardrails that would govern its use, and only after special mediators and other processes designed to assist parties in particularly difficult labour–management relationships to actually reach a collective agreement. The government has no interest in getting involved in labour disputes. We want parties to solve disputes at the table, and this bill would put in place measures that would help them do that.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way mentioned in his speech that the Liberals have a major projects office that was going to approve projects within a year. That is 12 months. This place passed Bill C-5 15 months ago, and yet not a single project has been approved by that office.
How long does it take to figure out which companies benefit Brookfield, so that they can approve a few projects?
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say to my hon. friend is, “Stay tuned.” There have been projects in the Canada Gazette. I would invite him to read the regular distribution of the Canada Gazette. There are 27 major nation-building projects under consideration by the Major Projects Office.
While I am on my feet, I want to thank Dawn Farrell and the entirety of the Major Projects Office, who have done heroic work in building our country over the past 12 months.
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport mentioned wanting to use the available expertise to accelerate projects of national interest. Speaking of expertise, Canada's chief science adviser told the Standing Committee on Science and Research that she had never been consulted about projects of national interest.
It is funny. The minister is talking about expertise, but he is not consulting his own expert, who is paid with public money. Instead of trying to convince us that he is using available expertise, can he simply confirm that he uses it only when it suits his narrative?
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we are proud to have a chief science adviser, because we are always guided by science. It helps us define a science policy for the entire government. As for regulators and regulatory agencies, they obviously have access to the best expertise available in the fields of energy, nuclear power and transportation so they can carry out their respective independent roles.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, this bill is an abomination. I want to go back to Bill C-5 along with Bill C-39. All of the language in these statutes rests on the assumption that cabinet can pick a project of national interest or a region of national interest without any criteria and without any cost-benefit analysis or proof of a business case.
Will the minister commit that before naming any such project or any such region, we actually have some facts presented to this House?
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, this bill, as Bill C-5 did, sets out a process that helps investors, project proponents, those who assess independently or otherwise each individual project, and applies the best possible scientific and other expertise, in addition, of course, to the duty to consult first nations, to the proposal that is before that regulator.
This process can go faster without having any standard lowered or any other Canadian standard or ability to evaluate diluted. We can make these projects get evaluated quicker: a yes or a no within a year.
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, it is déjà vu all over again.
A year and a half ago, the Prime Minister came storming into the House of Commons with a cape on his back, saying that he had a new bill, Bill C-5, which was going to bring in sweeping legislative changes to build at speeds not seen in generations. The media declared that we would build the unimaginable with this bill. Here we are, 18 months later, and how many projects has it built?
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, did I hear “zero”? Is there any dispute on the other side? They are dead quiet on the other side. The answer is “zero”.
How many permits have been issued by the new office? Zero. How many employees are working on those projects? It is zero, zip, nada, nothing, after 18 months, but do not worry. Today the Liberals have come in and announced another sweeping bill, which the media has regurgitated unfiltered, as though it were gospel truth, and this time the Liberals are repeating exactly the same promises.
It is not just that the Liberals have approved and built nothing. There are 500 projects, at least, waiting on the Prime Minister's desk. I say 500, because the Impact Assessment Agency has that number of significant projects, but there are also countless other projects at other departments, which are too dispersed among too many agencies for anyone to tell us how many projects the federal government is waiting to approve. Still, 18 months later, none of them are approved. Not a single Trudeau-era, antidevelopment law or tax has been removed. Not a single inch of oil pipeline has been built.
Remember, the Prime Minister said that we are in an existential crisis. That is to say that if we do not get it right, we will not even exist in his terms, that we are in a “war”. Is this the speed of war? Imagine this: If we had travelled at this speed back in the Second World War, we would not have gotten the Lancaster built in two years. In fact, the plane would not be off the ground even today.
There have been dozens of announcements, summits, speeches, signing ceremonies and other illusions. We have heard lots about this project or that, which will be designated, declared or listed. Pipelines do not go on lists; they go in the ground. Shovels do not go on designations; they go in the ground. Energy does not go in an MOU; it goes in a tanker to another market. Unfortunately, none of those things are happening. It is all talk, no results; all show, no go; and all theatre, no reality.
Here is the reality and the result: Gushing media headlines aside, there has been nothing in 18 months. The previous bill was called the Building Canada Act. It built nothing. Today we have a bill called the building Canada strong act, so in 18 months, the Liberals have managed to add one word. One word on a piece of paper is 18 months' worth of achievement. The only thing the Prime Minister has built is 14 new government agencies.
Now, here we go again. We have another bill, and it would not repeal Bill C-69, Justin Trudeau's antidevelopment law. It would not eliminate the industrial carbon tax, and it would not ultimately change the obstacles that are in the existing legal framework.
For example, let us take the administrative burden created by Liberal Bill C-69, Trudeau's antidevelopment law. Even if the bill before the House were to pass today, we would still have on the books requirements that anybody who applies for a project include analysis on “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”, as if that has anything to do with mines, pipelines or marine ports.
My favourite is that projects, even if the bill before the House today were to pass, would still have to take into account “any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the Agency requires to be taken into account.” That means there is no limit on the number of things that the bureaucracy would consider before a project were approved. How can the Liberals even talk about regulatory certainty with that kind of ambiguity?
The Liberals are claiming that it will help get things built, but they promised this the last time, so we should not hold our breath. Does it reduce the number of vexatious or irrelevant obstructions from hard-core foreign-funded interest groups that have been killing projects for over 10 years? Well, the bill maintains a wide-open approach to consultation about projects that would allow literally anyone to have their comments and testimony included in hearings before a project can actually occur, so we could have American interests that want to keep Canada down, the ones that helped Justin Trudeau get elected with massive foreign funding in the 2015 election, fund antidevelopment groups against the interests of Canada to block things from happening. It is elbows up, indeed. That would not change under this law.
Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if I can ask for a favour. Could you pause the clock so that I can speak for longer than 10 minutes but still come in under the 10-minute limit?
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
No, it turns out we cannot.
However, Mr. Speaker, under this bill, the one-year time limit could be paused at any time. The regulator could stop the clock so that it would not count within the one-year time limit. We could waste seven or eight years and still claim that it all happened under one. Under this bill, the bureaucrats could use three or four different excuses to hit the pause button on the clock, meaning that the famous one-year turnaround time on the decision that the minister advertised to the media is nothing in reality except an illusion.
On top of that, the minister sitting before me could actually add 90-day extensions to the time it takes to get a permit for a project. If that is still not enough for government bureaucrats, they could go to cabinet and get a permanent extension on the consideration of a bill. Who in their right mind, as a company, would put aside billions of dollars for a major project knowing that a Liberal cabinet, which has spent the last decade blocking projects, would have the legal power to delay the approval of or even a decision on a project forever?
Under the current system, the legislative timeline does not start until the proponent has done lengthy mandatory preplanning and consultations. That does not even come into the existing legislative time frames. Under Bill C-39, the proponent would have to gather and produce even more information, all the detailed engineering and scientific data necessary not only for the impact assessment, but also for whatever permitting processes apply to the project. That would all happen before the clock starts running on the one-year limit.
Mr. Speaker, if you would like me to stand up and speak for an hour before the clock starts on my 10-minute speech, I am sure the Liberals would love for that to happen. However, in reality, there is no one-year timeline for a project.
In sum, this is once again all talk and no action. The one-year timeline is smoke and mirrors, another illusion. The reality is that there would still be many years before concept can lead to construction. There is ultimately no limit whatsoever. This bill appears once again to be all talk and no results, headlines without deadlines.
Meanwhile, there are real consequences for the Prime Minister to continue along with the same policies of the Liberal government of the prior decade. Despite him claiming in the House of Commons that affordability is the best it has been in more than a decade, all he proved by saying that is that he is out of touch while Canadians are out of money.
The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. It was all talk and no results. Instead, today we got information from the OECD that we will be fourth out of seven, and our economic growth for the present year was downgraded by a quarter, down to a pathetic 0.9%.
Inflation is outgrowing wages, meaning Canadians are getting poorer in real time. Liberals are costing us more. Canadian households are now the most indebted in the G7, as interest rates rise on their mortgages, and rising prices at the grocery store ultimately leave our people behind.
We have a better way, and that is for the government to get out of the way and pass our economic action plan, which would scrap Bill C-69, the antidevelopment law. It would repeal the ban on shipping oil off the west coast of British Columbia. It would eliminate the industrial carbon tax.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have? It is unlimited. It is kind of like the timing on the Liberal approval for projects: It is unlimited. They can take as much time as they want. We can see why the Emiratis, who wanted to invest $90 billion in Canadians, came back six months later and said they could not find a project that was approved for them to invest in under the government. The Conservatives have a way to fix that. It is called the “one and done” plan. It is very simple: one project, one approval, one year, and better yet, one page. Members may say that it is impossible, but it has been done.
Under Prime Minister Harper's government, in the 2008-09 world financial crisis, then minister John Baird told his bureaucrats that he wanted to get the application form for a project down to one page. They said they could never do it, that it was impossible. They came back saying that he would be very happy because they got it down to 100 pages. He said that he wanted one page, and he told them to get out of his office. They came back, saying that the minister was going to be thrilled because they got it down to 50 pages, which had never been done. He told them to get out of his office and said that he wanted one page. They came back, saying that the minister was going to be thrilled because they got it down to 10 pages. He told them to get out of his office and said that he wanted one page. Finally they came back and told him it was one page. Then he told them he wanted one approval for each project. They came back and delivered one approval.
Guess what happened. We finished 23,500 projects, from concept to completion, in under two years. Despite grave warnings from the Liberal opposition at the time that this would destroy safety and the environment, the environment commissioner did a full audit of 23,500 projects, and not one came back with a safety or environmental problem, so “one and done” can be done.
What was funny was that the NDP got up and waved around a document saying that the environment commissioner had found a problem with a project that the feds had approved in Kanata, so we looked into it. It turned out that this project had not been part of the “one and done” plan but had taken seven years to approve and had the worst environmental outcome. That proves that all the paper, process and delays have nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with feeding an insatiable bureaucracy that creates work and money for itself by getting in the way, a bureaucracy that the government has allowed to metastasize over the last decade.
We need a real bill that will truly cap the consideration time for a project at under a year and set a target of six months. A year should be the worst-case scenario. In fact, why not bring all the first ministers and all the mayors into a room to sign a document that we in Canada should be the fastest place on earth to get a building permit? No matter what someone wants to build, it should be faster to build it in Canada than anywhere else on earth.
The Prime Minister could set the example today by granting permits for the 500 projects we have identified that are waiting in the impact assessment office. He could also get rid of the capital gains tax for reinvestments in Canada so we could bring back the trillion dollars of investment the Liberals have driven out of our country. That would be an avalanche of investment that would come pouring back into construction. It would be possibly one of the most patriotic tax cuts ever.
We will look very carefully at this 250-page Liberal bill, but we are not going to believe all the rhetoric, the hype and the talking points, because we have heard it all before. The Liberals have been repeating the same promises since the Prime Minister took office.
We are going to study the bill, but we have reservations about the outcome. The Liberals have made similar promises before. So far, they have not gotten rid of Liberal anti-development laws, Liberal anti-development taxes or Liberal anti-development bureaucracy. We want to remove these barriers so that we can build in earnest and make our country affordable, safe and independent here at home.
We will study the bill, and we will do so based on the criteria of whether it meets our mission of a country that is affordable, safe and independent here at home. Our mission is to save Canadians money, save jobs and put Canada first. We have a real plan to do it.
We ask the government to steal our plan. Perhaps what it should do is just take our plan and amend it over this bill. That way we would actually get some results. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister does not need to do, he needs to stop doing. He needs to stop blocking, stop taxing, stop obstructing and stop signing meaningless MOUs. He needs to get out of the way, get off the backs of our people and let our builders build, our workers work and our investors invest.
We should be the richest, most affordable country on earth. We have been blessed with an abundance that is unmatched in the history of humanity in geography, oceans and resources and, of course, the best people on planet earth. Let us unleash their potential and let us fulfill the promise of this country that anybody who works hard gets a great life, an affordable home, a fridge full of groceries and a bank account that is overflowing at the same time. That is the promise this country made to every single person.
That is our country's promise. That is what we are fighting for.
That is the fight we are having on behalf of all Canadians, so let us get the job done. There has been enough talk. It is time for some action.
Steven MacKinnon LiberalMinister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition knows that we have started on five significant major national projects. I know he knows that there are five more in the queue. I know that he knows we have $500 billion in investment commitments as a result of the Prime Minister's investment summit last week.
That speech was yet another very Justin Trudeau-obsessed piece of rhetorical flourish from the Leader of the Opposition. We have heard a lot of it before. The one thing I did not hear, and I would like the Leader of the Opposition to have the chance to answer this, is whether he actually has comments, criticisms or other observations of the bill.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister missed the speech. Maybe I should give it all over again, but before I do, let me just point out that he says they have “started” on five projects. They have started looking at five projects, not actually building anything, and that is the reality. The Liberals think that if they imagine something, that if they say something or that if the Prime Minister gives a speech or the media gives him gushing praise, it is the equivalent of that thing actually happening, when in fact single moms cannot eat the Prime Minister's speeches if they are low on money for groceries. People cannot pay their rent with the Prime Minister's fake MOUs. They cannot fill their tanks with Liberal rhetoric and promises. We need reality.
Yes, I do have comments on the bill, and I will repeat them. The bill would actually allow the government to violate its own promised one-year time limitation by delays at the front, delays in the middle and delays at the end. That is just one of the many criticisms that this bill deserves.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the leader of the official opposition about a very specific aspect of Bill C-39. I am referring to the government's option to approve development projects even before an environmental assessment has been done. What purpose do environmental assessments serve? They serve to ensure that approved projects are good projects and not too environmentally harmful. Environmental assessments are supposed to come first, before the project.
In some cases, Bill C-39 will pre-approve projects that are ready to get started. What happens if the assessment is negative? Proponents will be asked to come tear down any work already done. So much for predictability. In other words, these will be sham assessments, junk assessments.
With that in mind, how can the leader of the official opposition say that this bill does not go far enough?
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, even if the bill before us passes, the Liberal government will continue to block and tax the projects Canada needs, with endless delays, excessive red tape and taxes that discourage investment. That is why we are saying that it does not go far enough.
The government needs to get out of the way. That is what it comes down to. This federal government does not build projects. It blocks them. It is investors, businesses and workers who build projects. The problem is that the government is blocking them, and that has to stop. I know it is hard for the Bloc Québécois not to block everything, but we want the government to stop blocking projects in Canada.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the leader of the official opposition's speech today. I would like him to comment on the following examples. I have noticed a pattern with the Liberal government and with its predecessor.
In 2023, the Liberals established a national supply chain office, because they were all concerned about supply chains. They created the office, and yet we see food inflation being quite high in Canada. It continues to be a concern, especially in my riding.
We saw, in 2025, in Bill C-5, that they created a Major Projects Office that is supposed to get big projects built.
As we have seen, and as the member has said, zero projects have been built or have been approved by that office. We now have the Minister of Transport creating a national trade corridor office to do the same thing.
Does he see a pattern and is this bureaucracy actually helping or hurting?
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, the pattern is that the government confuses the problem with the solution. The problem is the government. It is not the solution. The government inflates food prices with high taxes, inflationary deficits and red tape on farm production. It then says that the solution to that must be even more government spending and bureaucracy, which drive up the cost of food and everything else.
The reason we have high housing costs is that government bureaucracy and taxes drive up housing. The Liberals say that the solution must be even more government programs to fix the problem that they caused. It is like the doctor who administers a poison so that he can administer the antidote and then claim to have saved one's life. Why did he not just do neither in the first place? The patient would be fine without the government doing the damage in the first place.
We have had 11 years of this. People cannot eat, heat or house themselves. Why do we not try something different? Why do we not get the government out of the way and off one's back?
Michael Coteau Liberal Scarborough—Woburn, ON
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 is designed to strengthen our economy and to look for ways to build the economy, so that, essentially, it can help everyday Canadians. In my riding of Scarborough—Woburn, I have people coming into my office all the time, talking about the challenges of life. Affordability is a real issue.
I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition why, when he was given the opportunity to support programs like the groceries and essentials benefit, which actually puts food on people's table, the child benefit, dental care, pharmacare and lunch programs for kids, which actually put food in the classroom for kids, when he was given the chance to vote to support everyday Canadians, at every single opportunity, he voted against them.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is in the member's question. He says that his constituents are coming into his office to say how much they are struggling with the cost of living. This is after all of these wonderful programs that they have brought in. Maybe he should listen to his constituents, who are telling him that their empty stomachs, empty fridges and empty bank accounts prove that Liberal programs are not working.
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind the Conservative leader of a few things that seem to be moving well. The first are the several Conservative members who crossed the floor to the Liberals. That even made it possible to deliver a majority, for the first time in history, after a minority government was elected in Parliament.
The other things that are moving quite well are all the Conservative ideas that are being taken up by the Liberals. It is quite striking. The Conservative Party also promises to build energy, electricity and rail corridors. The Liberal Party is proposing the same thing in Bill C‑39.
The Conservatives claim to support Quebec's autonomy. Will they put their foot down and ensure that Quebec's wishes as to whether or not we want this type of project on our territory are respected?
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, of course we want corridors for projects, but the Liberals have not created any. They have had 18 months since the passage of Bill C‑5, which would have allowed the Prime Minister to set up corridors and provide building permits to build pipelines, power lines and other projects. The Prime Minister did not use those powers to issue a single permit.
The difference between us and the Liberals is that, yes, the Prime Minister repeats our words, but without acting on them. He is all talk and no action.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question about, not just how much bureaucracy, but whether it troubles him as it troubles me that the government creates new agencies that are not transparent. Rather than creating Crown corporations or entities within departments, we are looking at special operating agencies, like the Major Projects Office, that are not as accountable as other types of bureaucracy. I wonder if the leader of the official opposition has any comment.
