Bill C-5

One Canadian Economy Act

An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act

Part 1 enacts the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act , which establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada. In the case of goods and services, that Act provides that a good or service that meets provincial or territorial requirements is considered to meet comparable federal requirements that pertain to the interprovincial movement of the good or provision of the service. In the case of workers, it provides for the recognition of provincial and territorial authorizations to practise occupations and for the issuance of comparable federal authorizations to holders of such provincial and territorial authorizations. It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Building Canada Act , which, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to add the name of a project and a brief description of it to a schedule to that Act if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the project is in the national interest;
(b) provides that determinations and findings that have to be made and opinions that have to be formed under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations for an authorization to be granted in respect of a project that is named in Schedule 1 to that Act are deemed to have been made or formed, as the case may be, in favour of permitting the project to be carried out in whole or in part;
(c) requires the minister who is designated under that Act to issue to the proponent of a project, if certain conditions are met, a document that sets out conditions that apply in respect of the project and that is deemed to be the authorizations, required under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations, that are specified in the document; and
(d) requires that minister, each year, to cause an independent review to be conducted of the status of each national interest project.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak in support of budget 2025, a budget that lays out a bold, forward-looking plan to build a stronger, more resilient Canada. At its core, budget 2025 recognizes that Canada stands at a turning point. Around the world, we see shifting trade relationships, rising global uncertainty, an increasingly competitive international economy and increasing international turmoil. These challenges require a plan that strengthens our foundations and builds for the long term. That is exactly what this budget delivers.

It is a plan that builds Canada strong by spending less on government operations and more on the people, industries and infrastructure that will define our future. It is a plan that balances fiscal discipline with ambition. While maintaining the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, our government is making historic, nation-building investments in housing, infrastructure and innovation.

Budget 2025 is a plan to catalyze $1 trillion in investments over the next five years. Central to that plan is building major infrastructure, more homes and stronger communities. This $1 trillion in investments is going to change Canada and who we are.

Over the next five years, budget 2025 commits nearly $280 billion in new investments to improve Canada's economy and empower Canadians to succeed. This includes $115 billion for infrastructure to modernize our cities, expand our trade corridors and ensure that every community across Canada has the tools it needs to grow. It includes $110 billion to boost productivity and innovation through investments in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and clean energy. It includes $30 billion for defence and security, ensuring that Canada can protect its sovereignty and play a leadership role in the world. It also includes $25 billion for housing through the new Build Canada Homes initiative, which is a program that will double the pace of construction, lower costs for first-time homebuyers and create good-paying jobs.

Not only that, but as I have a history in this House, I can tell members that for the last decades, we have not seen a single dollar invested in health care capital investments. This budget includes $5 billion for health-related infrastructure. Whether I travel to Edmonton or am in Surrey, British Columbia, I see that people are looking for hospital infrastructure. This fund is going to help not only the people in Surrey, but people from coast to coast to coast.

Together, these investments will not only strengthen our economy but also improve the quality of life for Canadians in every region.

This budget is also about efficiency and accountability. Through a comprehensive expenditure review, our government will save $60 billion over five years by cutting red tape and modernizing operations. Is that not what the Conservatives are looking for? I think that is what they are looking for. That $60 billion in savings is right there.

In doing so, we are shifting from a model of endless operating growth to one of strategic investment, focusing every dollar on projects that build productivity, competitiveness and resilience. By 2028-29, our goal is to balance day-to-day spending with revenues, while maintaining a modest deficit entirely tied to long-term investments that grow the economy.

The vision of budget 2025 is guided by four key objectives.

First is focusing our strengths and recognizing that Canada has what the world needs: clean and conventional energy, critical minerals, advanced technology and a highly educated workforce. We are an energy and innovation superpower, and we are investing in our ability to lead in both.

The second objective is building our nation. We will be delivering on major projects that connect our regions, create high-paying jobs and support Canadian industries like steel and softwood lumber. The Build Canada Homes initiative is one example of how we are creating growth that Canadians can see and feel in their daily lives.

The third objective is unifying our economy. Through the One Canadian Economy Act, we will break down interprovincial trade barriers, open new opportunities for workers and businesses, and ensure indigenous communities are full partners in Canada’s growth.

The fourth objective is diversifying our trade. We are expanding beyond traditional markets and developing a more flexible, resilient network of partners. With initiatives such as the trade diversification strategy and other major projects, Canada would strengthen its trade corridors, open new markets and build a more resilient export economy.

While these are national goals, they are felt most directly also at the local level. In communities like Surrey Newton, or Richmond Centre—Marpole, these matter. Surrey is one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada. It is a place of opportunity, diversity and entrepreneurship, but as we grow, we need infrastructure that keeps pace. We need parks, transit and community spaces that improve quality of life. Contrary to what the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole was saying earlier, that cities do not need investments in their parks and in their sports, that is not acceptable.

When we go to the mayors of cities, I hear appreciation for what we have done in this budget. That is why I am particularly proud that budget 2025 includes federal support for upgrades to Newton Athletic Park. This investment would deliver new artificial-turf fields, practice areas, tennis courts and walking paths, which would provide families and young people in Surrey Newton with safer, more accessible and modern recreational spaces.

This is not the end. In fact, in the whole of British Columbia, the Filipino community has been advocating for a long time for their community centre. When they met with me, I went to the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his advice because he is very involved in the Filipino community. In fact, he was a strong advocate that we need to get something like that done, and that was delivered, the Filipino cultural and community centre in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia. That is what our government is doing and will deliver.

The list goes on. In fact, White Rock, which is the riding next door to me, will get a pier as well. These are the kinds of community investments that make a difference in people’s daily lives: spaces where children can play, where families can gather and where newcomers can feel part of our community.

That is what the budget is all about: building a stronger Canada, not just through national policy but also through local action on the ground. Budget 2025 also strengthens community safety, an issue that residents in Surrey Newton care deeply about. We are investing in 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA officers, and 150 of them will be assigned to deal just with financial crimes.

These are the kinds of investments we need, so I would request that all members, the Conservatives, the Bloc, NDP and Green members, support this budget and—

Climate Change

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is looking at the wrong paper. The Liberals are cutting their program to plant two billion trees. That is what I asked about. They also reduced carbon pricing, and they are also using Bill C‑5 to bypass their own environmental assessments.

All the environmental measures introduced under Justin Trudeau, as feeble and inadequate as they were, are being abandoned one by one. The government is taking no steps forward and two steps back. They could actually pass for Conservatives.

Therefore, the question is: Do the Liberals believe in climate change?

National Strategy for Flood and Drought Prediction Act

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right now, the St. Lawrence River is at its lowest level ever. The drought currently affecting Quebec is impacting ecosystems, the local economy, maritime trade, and agriculture. Towns are bringing in drinking water from different locations. There are drought issues. We saw the forest fires in Canada; this year was the second-most devastating year for forest fires after 2023. We had catastrophic flooding after the tail end of hurricane Debby passed through. This all comes at a cost to families, to groceries and to insurance.

Unfortunately, the only conclusion we can come to is that the Liberal government is not being serious about the climate crisis that is making these phenomena more intense, more frequent and more severe and causing more suffering and higher costs.

When it comes to climate action, the Liberals have taken a number of steps backward since they came to power after the last election. I could list at least a dozen examples, starting with the elimination of consumer carbon pricing and the EV incentives, which they were supposed to reinstate but did not. People are no longer buying electric vehicles because they are waiting for those incentives to come back. There was the suspension of the strategy for the sale of zero-emission vehicles.

There is also the passage of Bill C‑5, which literally allows environmental legislation to be disregarded and completely blown off, in addition to providing for the approval of LNG Canada phase 2. This is going to double LNG exports.

The same goes for public transit. There is currently no agreement with Quebec for the Canada public transit fund. The government has spent $5.7 billion, but there is not even an agreement with Quebec.

We now see that the Liberals are even refusing to commit to meeting the country's GHG reduction targets. This is a major step backward, and it is worrisome. I could go on. If the Liberal government really wants to prevent floods, droughts and runaway climate change, it should cut GHG emissions. That is the priority.

Unfortunately, the government can announce a whole range of adaptation measures, but if it keeps moving backward the way it has been doing, it will never be able to adapt as much as it needs to. The government has gone backward for long enough. Now is the time for it to shift out of neutral and get in gear. We are talking about a climate crisis. The government talks about flooding, but then it buries its head in the sand about the need to reduce GHG emissions and refuses to do more than just talk about adaptation.

At present, if we want to protect the economy, we know very well that this requires drastic GHG emission reduction measures, and that is not what is being presented to us today. When I look at the purpose of this bill, it is to improve drought and flood forecasting.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois agrees that we need to do more to adapt to climate change. We have been saying for several years now that information must be more readily available and that the communities affected by the droughts and flooding we were talking about need more predictability. However, is a bill that establishes yet another strategy with no budgetary impact really necessary? That is what we are currently having trouble determining with this bill, so we have doubts about its real scope.

Is this a legislative firework? Is it just meant to draw people's attention away from bad news on the climate front? We hope that is not the case.

Let me elaborate a little on my concerns. The bill proposes to create “a cooperative, national hydrological and water resources forecasting service and system”. Why is this bill necessary if it does not amend the existing framework legislation, which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? That is the enabling legislation of Environment Canada, which takes care of weather forecasting.

Is there currently a problem with the law regarding hydrological and weather forecasting that prevents the government from properly fulfilling its responsibilities or from improving the quality of its activities? That is our question. Where is the problem right now? Why could these proposed services not be provided directly by Environment Canada's existing weather services? Why do we need to create a new government body and a new general bureaucracy? That is a big question mark for us.

Environment Canada's Meteorological Service of Canada can get information from Quebec's environment ministry, which already oversees Quebec's regime governing bodies of water. Quebec's environment ministry already gathers data. It processes, analyzes and disseminates that data. It measures water levels and flows. Some 230 hydrometric stations are scattered across Quebec. This data enables the Government of Quebec to develop simulation models and forecast flows in certain waterways, snow melt and runoff. Quebec has been doing this for years. It is used to it. These activities obviously also provide the hydrological and hydraulic expertise required for proper water management. There is a lot of data on the ministry's website, including water levels, flows, flood zones and hydroclimatic forecasts. The Government of Quebec has the expertise necessary to protect the public from floods and droughts.

It appears to us that Environment Canada already has the authority to establish partnerships, both internationally and domestically, if the objective is to improve the services and practices of the Meteorological Service of Canada. This bill assumes that there is a need for coordination between the governments of the different provinces. However, it is not clear to us that this need is real. It is even less clear that it should be up to the federal government to oversee coordination between the provinces. They can establish relationships among themselves without the need for Ottawa's intervention.

Why does this bill imply that the Meteorological Service of Canada would not be able to perform the duties referred to in the current strategy outlined in the bill? I must admit that this confuses me. If the government is truly concerned about the issue of floods and droughts, why are these revelations not included directly in the budget? Why is there a bill presenting a strategy when we do not even know if we need a bill to have this strategy?

One thing is certain, however. The cost of inaction has skyrocketed in the meantime. Just look at the consequences of climate change. We commissioned a study on the topic. Over the past 10 years, insured disasters have cost an average of $2.5 billion per year. Last year was a record year, with $8.5 billion in insurable losses related to severe weather in Canada. The average amount paid out annually in claims for disasters in Quebec is $428 million, a number that will obviously continue to rise. We know that climate action costs much less than inaction, that every dollar invested in emissions reduction saves money, and that every dollar invested in adaptation saves $13 to $15 in avoided costs for damage. That is why adaptation is a priority for us.

Dealing with floods and droughts is a priority, but is it a priority to pass a bill and create a strategy that does not seem to require a bill to exist? That is why we are essentially also asking the government to set aside some money in the next budget. What makes adaptation so challenging is the need for money, the need for help for the provinces and municipalities. Municipalities in Quebec alone currently need $2 billion a year to adapt their infrastructure to climate change.

That is what we need, not a bill that leaves us feeling unconvinced. Obviously, we could stand to gain from being convinced. We always keep an open mind. However, for now, we have very specific demands. We included plenty of proposals in our election platform. Here are a few: Prepare people for the cost of climate change, increase the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, protect and help people with insurance too, increase funding to prevent shoreline erosion, and ensure that the federal government makes transfers to local governments, which are in the best position to manage the consequences of climate change.

When we look at all this, it does not seem as though the government is serious about climate change. We are very concerned that we are having a big debate to initiate something that we do not need, when the government could move forward quickly on its own. The Bloc Québécois is serious about this climate crisis and we are going to take the bill that is before us seriously.

That said, for the moment, the Bloc Québécois is confused. We have serious questions about the need for this bill.

We need to be convinced.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to open by saying what an honour it is to be back where I started, on the environment file. I was the environment critic for the Liberal Party back in British Columbia as an MLA. Back in 2003, my main goal was to remediate the environmental damage done to my territory by industrial development. That led me down different pathways. It led me to aboriginal rights and title, for example. It led me to economics, permitting and environmental assessments.

Some may remember that in my territory, we had an aluminum smelter plant, a pulp and paper mill and a methanol plant. Back in the fifties, sixties and seventies, environmental standards were not a priority, not just in Kitimat but all across Canada, and maybe even North America for that matter. In understanding what environmental standards meant and what environmental assessments were, I found there was a logical way to address environmental impacts, both past and proposed. Quite honestly, I found myself very ignorant of how that tied into our society, Canadian society, and aboriginals living in our region.

This is where I first came across the term “balance”, and the standard of living versus environmental issues. It has been a very tough battle over the years to try to maintain that balance, especially when we consider that first nations, for the last 100 or 150 years, have been excluded not only from the economy but, to a large extent, from the society of Canada. It has been a very long journey to try to rectify those two provisions of the Indian Act. Today is a 180° turnaround in the environmental considerations we are talking about versus what we were doing 20 or 40 years ago.

I heard my colleague from the government side talk about what Bill C-241 is not. It would not be an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction, for example, and it would not negatively affect aboriginal rights and title. Consultation would be carried out. First nations and Canadians have heard this before. It would not be right to not address this directly.

Like a lot of MPs in the chamber, I have gotten a lot of emails from and had a lot of Zoom calls and meetings with first nations that are specifically worried about Bill C-5, for example, and how it is going to be rushed through for major projects and ignore the case law that was established in the courts of B.C. and Canada, specifically the Haida court case of 2004. I just got off a call with the Ontario chiefs, who talked a lot about the chemical valley and Sarnia. They are clear that they do not want to oppose development, but they do not want the past to be repeated and they get ignored.

They feel that talks with the commercial sector were going fine until Bill C-5 was enacted, and now they are feeling ignored. They feel they are being ignored because there seems to be a way to get to the finish line without talking to these chiefs about their treaty rights and title or their aboriginal rights and titles, which are two distinctly different topics.

In terms of environmental issues, the point I would like to make is that this is not new for first nations. For many first nations, we have to address environmental issues first. I know we are talking about forecasting for floods and disasters, mainly for better insurance purposes. I have talked to different people about what this could mean. Everybody agrees that it is a good idea to do this, but it is a duplication.

Is the private sector already doing this, especially in terms of insurance for flood protection or farming? Can we do better? Yes, we can do better, and I sincerely hope we are going to do better, but it cannot be a top-down approach. It has to be inclusive. There are many people and organizations that are affected by these disasters, as my colleague pointed out. We are talking about indigenous people. We are talking about people who live close to rivers. We are talking about farmers.

Nobody is immune from environmental disasters, so I think what Canadians want is to ask whether this is going to be an open and transparent process, in terms of getting Canadians' interests into the bill and making sure it not only does what it says it is going to do, but that there is no government overreach, such as what we have seen in other measures carried out by the government. Is it going to be rolled out in a way that does not provide more cost to the Canadian taxpayer?

Most Canadian taxpayers are already limited out. They cannot afford any more taxes. We talk about the affordability issue in this chamber every day. We are talking about how mothers and dads cannot afford groceries. Even if someone works in a grocery store, they cannot afford groceries. As Conservatives, it is our strong belief that this can be done within existing entities using existing resources and that the government could do it more efficiently without adding more cost to the taxpayer and without increasing the affordability crisis we are facing right now.

More taxation is not the answer. I have listened to the answers and the questions coming out of this chamber regarding Bill C-241, and it has always been pointed out that we already have some of the strongest environmental standards in Canada, if not in North America, both provincially and federally. It seems to make sense that with this high level of expertise Canadians have, we should be able, with existing resources, to do a better job of predicting floods and droughts and to prepare not only our entities to actually combat this and deal with it, but also regular Canadians.

I agree that the impacts are stressful for Canadians, both mentally and with the cost attached to them. Anything we can do to actually limit that suffering is a good thing, as long as there is no overreach and as long as there is no extra taxation.

I have also heard the idea that somehow this would not encroach on provincial jurisdiction. I go back again to Bill C-5, which talked about how we would build major projects in a fast-tracked fashion, and they would be fast-tracked within two years. It was in the constitutional authority Canada has to actually get this done in the national interest, and everybody, to a certain degree, agreed. However, the very next day the government came around and said it would not do something without national consensus, without defining what “consensus” meant. They did not talk about whether they meant provincial or municipal. They did not talk about regional districts. They did not talk about any of that.

We always get mixed messaging with all the measures that come out of the government, and all the Conservatives want to make sure of is that we do this in a very common-sense fashion with fiscal responsibility and practical solutions, because Conservatives' goal is simple: We want to protect Canadians, strengthen our economy and preserve the natural beauty of this country for generations to come.

Citizenship Act

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague from Winnipeg North of something. Perhaps he does not spend enough time in the House to realize that it was his government that, with the support of the Conservative Party, imposed a gag order on the House last June regarding Bill C‑5, a bill on projects of national interest. After several months, we still do not know what the projects of national interest are.

I think it would be good to refresh my colleague's memory. Quebec's motto is Je me souviens. Perhaps my colleague still does not understand what it means, even after many years in the House, but I make it my duty to remind him.

I would like my Conservative colleague to share what she thinks of what the government is doing right now. Once again, it is dismissing the committee's work with the support of the NDP through the back door. The NDP is just trying to survive politically and is virtually invisible in the current political sphere.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not normally plan my date schedule on the floor of the House of Commons, but since the member for Winnipeg North is so eager, this seems the right time to invite all members to join us in Winnipeg during the November break week. I will fly to Winnipeg. Wednesday, November 12 would probably be a good day. It is the day after Remembrance Day, so it is not going to conflict with anything, but students will still be in their classrooms. I will rely on the member to make some of the logistical arrangements on the ground himself, since I am providing the courtesy of flying to his hometown. This will be a great debate in front of students and other members of Parliament, I am sure.

I have been visiting a number of university campuses precisely to ask this question to students: Are they better off or worse off than their parents generation? I know many students I talk to are telling me they are worse off as a result of the failing economic policies of the government. We can talk about economics. We can talk about foreign policy. We can talk about House procedure. I am happy to debate that member anywhere, on anything, anytime, and I think the students of Winnipeg will benefit from that greatly. This will be Wednesday, November 12 in Winnipeg, but it will be the responsibility of the member for Winnipeg North to arrange some of the logistical details and to pick me up at the airport.

On to the subject of this debate, which will maybe be a bit of a prelude to that grand event coming up in a few weeks, we are talking about the Prime Minister’s conflicts of interest. The Prime Minister we have in office at present is the most conflicted prime minister in this country's history. He will have to, or is supposed to, recuse himself from decisions related to more than 100 different companies he has an interest in. This conflict of interest screen will be administered, conveniently, by his chief of staff, as well the Clerk of the Privy Council. The process of a blind trust is that somebody else is making decisions about what is done going forward with those investments, but of course, a person cannot necessarily unknow what they had that was put into that conflict in the first place.

For those watching at home, this is how a conflict of interest screen works. I buy a Dunkin’ Donuts, and then I put it in a blind trust. In my job as a minister, or a prime minister, a decision comes forward with a potential subsidy for Dunkin’ Donuts. It is in a blind trust, but I still know I used to invest in that. This is the problem for the whole architecture of this, frankly. If the Prime Minister made all of these investments, continues to hold the investments, knows he has them, yet is involved in decisions that would materially benefit him, even though he cannot control further decisions made with those companies, that still raises some major questions.

It is important to analyze the Prime Minister's own words and his own philosophy as it relates to relationships between corporations and government. I would encourage Canadians to read his book Value(s) because I think it is quite revealing about the Prime Minister’s approach to things. It is revealing in that he very much believes in this kind of stakeholder capitalist, elite capitalist model of decision-making, which is not free markets, but rather, it is elite business leaders and elite politicians getting together to make decisions, to pick winners and losers, to decide what is going to go forward and what is not going to go forward.

We see the Prime Minister leaning into this elite capitalism, elite corporatism philosophy with some of the proposals he has put forward, which is, on the one hand, more government involvement and control in the market, and, on the other hand, simultaneously, government abridging processes for favoured companies. With Bill C-5, the government did not choose to reform the assessment process. Instead, it said it is going to create an opportunity to fully abridge that process for certain favoured companies or favoured projects.

What we see developing with the Prime Minister is the implementation of his elite corporatist agenda. It is the idea that large businesses and politicians at the elite level come together to say what they like and do not like and what they think should and should not happen, and then they provide a red carpet for favoured projects or subsidies for favoured projects or approaches, leaving in place all the existing roadblocks for other kinds of businesses and those who are not as well connected or part of the elite corporate circle involved in making these decisions.

To a lot of people, the language used in the Prime Minister's book Values, such as elite corporatism or stakeholder capitalism, whatever one calls it, sounds nice in a sense because the implication is that people will be coming together and discussing the common good. However, in practice, what it ends up being is a small circle of elite and powerful people coming together and theorizing about what the common good is, while doing a lot of things that are particularly in their own interest.

In opposition to that approach, the Conservatives believe in genuinely free markets and open and transparent democratic decision-making where, yes, we deliberate about the common good, but where all of society, a much broader range of individuals, is able to participate in discussions and decisions about the common good and where economic activity is driven by creative competition in which all businesses can take part, not in which there are a small number of favoured elites.

There is an elite corporatist philosophy coming from the Prime Minister, and it is combined with a personal reality in which he is personally invested in or connected to many of the companies that could play a consequential role in benefiting from the corporate-government relationship the Prime Minister has advocated for. This is a big problem, and I think we are going to see the implications of it going forward from a Prime Minister who believes in elite corporatist decision-making and who is connected to and invested in many of the corporations that could well benefit from that process.

If we want to talk about what is aligned with our values and what is going to advance the common good, I note we have a jobs crisis right now in this country, and we are seeing more decisions that lead companies to move jobs out of the country. These are companies like Stellantis, which received significant government subsidies and chose to move jobs out of the country.

We sadly have a Prime Minister who led by example. Brookfield's corporate headquarters was moved out of the country while he was running the show. We have a well-connected Prime Minister coming from that world, and he paved the way to moving jobs out of this country. It goes to show that elite corporatist decision-making very often does not align with the interests of workers and Canadian families, and that the kind of model he advocates in his book is not one that aligns with anything many Canadians would like to see.

I will sit down and invite the member for Winnipeg North to respond.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member for Winnipeg North inviting my colleagues to join us in friendly Manitoba. I look forward to that debate taking place on a university campus. Maybe they will come out to Brandon, to my constituency. It would be good to get a few Winnipeg Liberals outside the Perimeter Highway every once in a while to understand the needs of rural Manitobans. I would be glad to take the member back to my alumni university and have him listen to some of the constituents out there, who I am proud to represent, and the challenges they find not just with the Liberal Party's conduct overall, but also particularly with respect to ethics.

It is in fact shocking that the entire argument from the Liberals today about this report and the subsequent amendment coming from the ethics committee is that they want to talk about the fact that this is not a priority for Canadians. I am shocked. I heard a lot about the Liberal ethical challenges on the doorsteps of Brandon—Souris during the last campaign. I am surprised the member for Winnipeg North did not. Perhaps I need to do some doorknocking in his constituency as well, just to remind them of the exact record of the Liberal government.

I would like to note, before I get started, that I plan to split my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I understand the members opposite will be very excited to hear from him, particularly given the new situation and the agreement we just came to.

We talk about a lack of accountability and credibility. I asked the member for Winnipeg North this question earlier. I am still struck by the fact that his only response to me, perhaps suggesting the Liberals have a credibility issue on these topics, is to go back and talk about things that happened 20 years ago. Maybe he is accurate on that, maybe he is not, but that is the big comeback, that the bar is set at a certain level so it is fine if we are just as low. That is not really much reassurance for Canadians who have a deep concern about the significant ethical failings of the Liberal government over the last nine and a half or 10 years. Many of those members are still in the front two or three benches advising the Prime Minister on policy issues, but that he should somehow not be held to a standard, that we should somehow not be improving things in this country is a bit baffling. That is the only argument the Liberals have. I digress, but here we are.

We moved this amendment. I think it is pretty reasonable. The third report is coming from the Standing Committee on Ethics. We are asking for some witnesses to come to have a discussion to better address the concerns posed by the unprecedented extent of the Prime Minister's corporate and shareholding interests “provided that, for the purposes of this order...the following be ordered to appear as witnesses”. I do not think it is really that unreasonable, nor do I think most Canadians would think it is really all that unreasonable, for the Prime Minister's successor, as well as a number of his current staff, to come to explain exactly how this blind trust works and what exactly the implications are for his finances when he makes decisions.

It is not that these people coming to committee would be holding up the work of government. That is a convenient excuse for the Liberals, who have dithered away, as my colleague from Calgary said, the first weeks of this Parliament. We passed Bill C-5 because we agree it is finally time for the Liberals to get something built in this country after 10 years of getting nothing done. Tax cuts are always a good thing, so we voted in favour of that too.

The Liberals looked around like they did not know what to do for the rest of the session, as there was no other legislation ready to go. What were they doing when they prorogued for months at a time to run around and find a new leader to salvage the sinking ship of their political party? They did not think of coming up with any new ideas, other than two Conservative platform ideas, to put into legislation.

We came back here in September, and it is the same story. We have been talking about crime for eight years and the fact the Liberals' bail system has destroyed community safety across the country. It took them another month and a half to get a bill together. Where were they all summer? Now they are going to tell us that we are holding up that debate and holding up getting those bills passed.

Bill C-222 from the member for Oxford has been on the books for a month. The government could have passed it already. The bill could be over in the other place. It might have even received royal assent by now if the Liberals were actually serious about getting something done with respect to crime. It is baffling to the vast majority of Canadians, and certainly the ones I represent, that the Liberals' whole argument is “Oh my gosh, the Conservatives are really holding stuff up.” No, there was legislation on the books regarding these issues, and the Liberals did not pass it. In fact they did not prioritize it, and they voted against a motion that would have expedited the passage of it.

Now we want to talk about ethics, because there is potentially the most conflicted Prime Minister in Canadian history sitting in office. Maybe he is and maybe he is not. We would like to have a discussion about it, and the Liberals are going to tell Canadians that it is a waste of time. I do not know. I guess we will go to the doors sooner rather than later and have that discussion with Canadian voters, and I am curious to hear. I am not sure that the feedback is going to be quite what the Liberals think it is going to be, despite their set talking point.

I am not sure whether the individuals listed in the proposed amendment to the motion have already texted the Liberal MPs, saying they do not want to come to the committee and asking them to say whatever they can to make their appearance not happen, or whether this is just standard operating procedure for the Liberals.

I pointed out in a question earlier that the members opposite stood up for years, debate after debate, and defended Justin Trudeau, saying there was nothing to see on the WE scandal, that he had done nothing wrong. They were shelling out contracts to WE. They hired the prime minister's family members so they could make some money. The Liberals said there was nothing to see, until of course it all came to light that the Liberals had actually done something wrong, and then they were pretty quiet about it.

Then we got into the Aga Khan's island, and there was nothing to see here; the prime minister was a wonderful guy with nice hair, and there was nothing wrong. That was until it came out that he actually should not have accepted a vacation worth several hundreds of thousand of dollars, on a private island, from a family friend who wanted stuff from the government. Then the Liberals were pretty quiet about it.

Then we got into SNC-Lavalin and the government's actually interfering in the prosecution of a private corporation in this country, full of Liberal insiders and friends. There was nothing to see here; the prime minister had done absolutely nothing wrong, but the Liberals fired two of their colleagues over it. Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott got turfed; they bit the dust for Liberal defence mechanisms to defend the prime minister and his office. Then of course it came out that the Liberals had breached ethical activity in those instances.

We want to know this: Is this now the Liberals' falling into the same old habits of defending the Prime Minister, obfuscating the picture and trying to hide as much as possible, or does the new Prime Minister, the member for Nepean, actually have nothing to hide? Canadians deserve clarity on that, and it is not an unreasonable ask for Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, or anybody else in this country, to be making.

The Liberals can continue to stand up and say this is a total waste of time, but it will reflect poorly on them in the future, just as their defence of their actions in the WE scandal, in the SNC-Lavalin scandal, in the Aga Khan island cover-up, in the green slush fund cover-up and in all of the Liberal cover-ups has reflected badly on them in the days that have followed since they said, “nothing to see here”.

It is a very simple ask from Conservatives. In fact the proposed amended motion actually sets out timelines. If we need to plan the government House business for the Liberals, we have set out the timelines for when this can be done, in the proposed amended motion, so they can plan their legislative agenda accordingly, because, Lord knows, they have not done it yet. There has not been anything from the Liberals. It took them all year to announce a November 4 budget, three-quarters of the way through a fiscal year, so we have set out the timeline for them.

Let us get this through, get the witnesses called to committee and then get on with solving the rest of the Liberal challenges that are facing Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member says I sound upset. I am a tad bit upset because I want to deal with the issues that Canadians are concerned about first and foremost, as opposed to playing these destructive games that the Conservatives want to play, putting their own political partisan party issues ahead of the interests of Canadians.

I am a bit upset. Why? It is because at the end of the day, we had a Prime Minister and Liberal caucus recognizing that we wanted to build one Canada, a Canada strong. That is why we brought in legislation on that, Bill C-5, which we were able to pass, and I am grateful for that. It took down barriers so we could have more trade within Canada. The leader of the Conservative Party was not elected at that time, but we did get it passed. We were also able to give an income tax break to Canadians, and 22 million Canadians derived a benefit as a direct result.

We have substantial legislation before us. How many times did we have a Conservative MP stand up and talk about the need for bail reform? Bail reform is now in a position to be debated, but we need to get Bill C-3 through because of the superior court's deadline. Canadians want bail reform. The Conservatives say it, but they do not want it to turn into reality because they would rather say the government is dysfunctional. In reality, it is the Conservatives who are dysfunctional. Their priorities are all wrong.

They now bring up that we have a committee report, but it was decided by a standing committee where there is an unholy alliance or coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc because they now make up a majority of the committee, just those two political parties. They have made the decision that they want to continue with the Conservative idea that the best way to get a government to be disliked is to attack the leader, whether it is justified or not. That is their motivation.

Then they say the standing committee has said we need to have this studied; it wants to investigate this issue. That is the Conservatives working with the Bloc. Those two formed a coalition to try to embarrass the government. That is the intent of the motion that was just proposed, not to deal with substantive issues that Canadians are concerned with.

They ask about the conflict of interest and whether we are interested in it. Absolutely, we are interested in the conflict of interest. We are going by the code that the current leader of the Conservative Party supported and defended, which Stephen Harper brought in and which the current Prime Minister respected even before he became a member of Parliament, let alone the Prime Minister of Canada.

Of course we are concerned about it, but it is the Conservatives who continue to believe that the best way to get Canadians upset is to come up with dots and stars all over the place, as if there is a conspiracy here and a given minister is bad. They are very good at the conspiracy stuff, but when it comes to tangible action, that is where they are found wanting.

One member made reference to the credibility of the system. Do I have a story for members on the credibility of the system. Every member of the House, I am sure, is aware of the leader of the Conservative Party's attack on the RCMP, one of Canada's most significant institutions, recognized around the world as a first-class law enforcement agency and security agency that protects the interests of Canadians. It is, in fact, apolitical. What does the leader of the Conservative Party have to say about it? The word he used in regard to management was “despicable”. We then wonder what impact that has.

All sorts of members piled onto that particular issue. They recognize the independence of our conflict of interest office and respect the office. Why do they not demonstrate some form of respect for the RCMP?

Days after the Prime Minister said that, others piled on. I remember the member for Bow River indicated there is “management weakness”.

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for speaking on Bill C-12, but unfortunately I get the feeling that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have forgotten that the public elected a minority government, in other words a government that should work diligently, with as little partisanship as possible. It should take into account the fact that there is no majority in the House and that we have a duty to talk to each other and work together.

Let me explain. The Conservatives supported a Liberal gag order on Bill C-5 last June. Even though it was a major bill, a gag order was nevertheless quickly imposed. Now the same thing is happening with Bill C-12, a bill that even the government acknowledged caused many people a great deal of concern in its previous version, Bill C-2. People in Shefford have reached out to me about this issue, particularly about envelopes being opened, because they are concerned about their freedom.

At this point, the Liberals are no longer taking part in the debate on this important bill, Bill C-12. Changes have been made, yet no other Liberals are speaking. What is my colleague's take on what Canadians must be thinking, since they gave this Parliament a minority government?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know that much of what is happening in the States with attacks on immigrants and attacks on asylum seekers is primarily impacting people of colour in cities across the United States. I do not want Canada to appease the kind of racist, dogmatic, fascist behaviour that we are seeing south of the border.

Just as in the case of the unconstitutional Bill C-5, Bill C-12 would create power for cabinet to create “Orders Made in the Public Interest”. This would give the government an unchecked power to stop receiving applications for visas and for other residency permits, to suspend processing of immigration applications and to target measures against “certain foreign nationals”.

There is no definition of “public interest” in Canadian law, and no explanation in the bill, so how do we know that the Liberal cabinet, or any future cabinet, would not in fact pursue its own interests or, worse yet, the interests of the Trump administration through this unconstitutional legislation?

The bill would also be very problematic for the safety of women and girls. Several women's organizations, in fact, including Women's Shelters Canada, the Canadian Women's Foundation and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, stated, “Survivors of...violence are uniquely harmed by arbitrary timelines and restricted pathways in immigration, which deny survivors the ability to seek protection when they most need it. Any changes to C-2 that do not remove the immigration provisions will continue to put vulnerable women at risk.”

A broad coalition of civil liberties groups, data privacy organizations, refugee and migrant rights organizations and gender justice organizations strongly opposes the government's introduction of Bill C-12, which seeks to fast-track rather than address many aspects of Bill C-2's myriad problems. In fact, a coalition of over 300 organizations is reiterating its call for a full withdrawal of both bills. That coalition includes Amnesty International, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Church of Canada, the Migrant Rights Network and the Canadian Council for Refugees.

Tim McSorley, who is part of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, indicated:

Bill C-12 does not fix Bill C-2; it fast tracks some of the most egregious aspects, while still moving forward with the rest. Our government has made it abundantly clear that they will continue to fight for every privacy-violating measure Bill C-2 still contains, and are only introducing Bill C-12 to get restrictions on migrant and refugee rights adopted sooner.

As parliamentarians, we are obliged to uphold international law, and that includes international conventions that we are signatories to, including for international human rights that grant asylum seekers the right to seek protection from prosecution. This is most notable in article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the 1951 Refugee Convention. A core principle is non-refoulement, which means that countries are prohibited from returning refugees to a place where their life or freedom is at risk. Countries are obliged to assess asylum claims fairly and protect refugees from being sent back to danger.

I think about the number of refugees who have made Winnipeg Centre their home, whom I am proud to now have as neighbours and who fled life-and-death circumstances. We have a legal obligation to not close our borders to them.

Article 14 states, “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” Article 14 further notes that this right does not apply to those genuinely prosecuted for non-political crimes or acts against the UN principles.

This is a fundamental principle: the principle of non-refoulement. This fundamental principle of international law is also found in other international human rights treaties that we are signatories to. It prohibits the forced return of refugees to a country where they face a serious threat to their life or freedom. This is considered a customary international law that applies to all countries.

I felt very strongly about the NDP's position on this particular bill, a bill that would violate international law. It is a bill that, in fact, would violate the rule of law. It is a bill that would have an impact on our reputation around the world and that feeds into the racist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic tropes that we are seeing coming from the south. Let us put silence on that voice and let us be what Canada has always been, a home welcoming to all.

Employment

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that it is crucial for all Canadians to have a secure footing in the workforce, especially in this unusual period when our economy is under threat and when many people are feeling anxious about their job prospects. That is why our government is committed to preparing the workforce. We are ensuring that workers of all ages have access to training, retraining and upskilling.

We need more Canadians working in the skilled trades. That is why we invest nearly $1 billion annually in apprenticeship supports for the Red Seal program. House construction, automotive service technicians, power line technicians, millwrights, horticulturists and truck and transport mechanics are all key to Canada's road to a prosperous future, so we are actively encouraging young people to consider developing trade careers that will help them and help the country.

Let me say that after travelling across Ontario and hearing from skilled trades organizations this summer, I heard a common message. It was about the imperative of having child care on job sites and to help people go through training. If the member opposite is that concerned about ensuring we have a vibrant workforce, I would urge him to urge his party to support us in the building blocks of a strong economy. One of those building blocks is child care for parents who are working and want to take on some of these jobs in the skilled trades. That comes from people working in the skilled trades and training in the skilled trades and from the employers who employ them.

On June 6, the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy introduced legislation to unify the Canadian economy. Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, provided the leadership to strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security through economic integration. Building a stronger, more connected, more competitive Canada will drive business growth and set us on a path to create jobs from coast to coast to coast.

On top of that, the legislation removed federal barriers to labour mobility, which is vitally important for provinces and territories and the licences and certification processes that are right now barriers for labour to move across provinces. We have to work on bringing those barriers to worker mobility down. A worker authorized in one jurisdiction must quickly and easily be able to work in another. That would make it easier for skilled workers to do their jobs across Canada.

As the Prime Minister has said, it is time to “build big, build bold, build now”. There is a consensus on this approach. It is time to focus on what we can do in Canada to shore up our economy and create jobs here at home.

Opposition Motion

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the best opportunities I have ever had in the House to talk about the Darlington nuclear project, the SMR project, which is going to create 1,600 jobs in my region of Durham. I am very proud of that project being listed as a major project, and it is moving forward quickly. That is how we build the economy in Canada. That is how we create more jobs. I am very proud of that project making the major projects list and being expedited through the approval process.

Members opposite do not understand Bill C-5. I suggest they go back and read it. If I am not mistaken, I think they voted in favour of it. It is surprising that they never read the bill, but that does not surprise me much.

Let us get back to the facts. Canada has the lowest tariff rate of any U.S. trade partner. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and Canada has an AAA credit rating, one of only two countries in the G7.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, Bill C‑5, which we passed last June, removed federal barriers to internal trade.

As a member from New Brunswick, I have regular discussions with my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, including a number of provincial ministers who are in my riding.

We talk about how the work we do here in Ottawa can have a positive impact on New Brunswick's economy.

Opposition Motion—Cost of Deficits

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives like to take the stats and give the impression that everything is still broken in Canada.

Let us look at the types of things done, coming out of the last election, by the Prime Minister and the government, whether it was getting rid of the carbon tax, something that was initiated virtually when the Prime Minister became the Leader of the Liberal Party, or the first substantial pieces of legislation brought in after the election, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. Bill C-4 gave 22 million Canadians a tax break.

We also then brought in Bill C-5 to build one Canadian economy. On this side of the House, within the Liberal caucus, there is a build Canada strong mentality. We are determined to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, contrary to what the Conservatives say day after day.

We can look at some of the very basic, fundamental stats. Let us take a look at the labour force participation and contrast it to that of the United States. Canada's labour force participation is far greater than it is in the United States. That does not mean we are not sympathetic to people who are losing jobs; of course we are. That is the reason we have developed five major projects, with more to come before the Grey Cup game.

Of course we are sensitive to the people who are losing jobs, just like we are concerned with the issue of affordability. Let us look at the reality of affordability, year over year. From July to July, inflation was 1.9%. That is well within the markers set up by the Governor of the Bank of Canada. That is why interest rates have gone down. That is why we are in the lower half. We are also doing better than most countries in the G7 on interest rates.

The Conservatives talk about debt. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the entire G7, and the Conservatives know that. They know some of the economic indicators. However, they still go around saying that things are so bad in Canada, and then they criticize the Liberals if we try to portray things in a little more of a positive light, accusing us of trying to pat ourselves on the back. We are expressing the reality of the situation: Canadians of all political stripes outside the chamber are coming together and working together to build one strong Canada.

We have a Prime Minister who went to the United States of America to meet with President Trump to begin negotiations in a very tangible way so we can be there for Canadians. What did the Conservatives say? They said that they want the agreement and that we had said we would have an agreement, and so on. They will just fold, capitulate and do whatever they want. We are not going to do that. We believe we have to be there and get the best deal for Canadians. If that means we have to wait an extra week, two weeks or a month or two, whatever it takes, we are going to achieve the best deal for Canadians. That is what the negotiations are all about.

On building our economy, let us take a look at the projects we have brought forward: LNG in B.C., copper in the prairie provinces, nuclear energy in Ontario, the port in Quebec, and a very aggressive, proactive Atlantic caucus pushing on a number of different projects, just like in Manitoba where we are trying to get into the second round of major projects. Premiers of different political stripes and Canadians of all stripes are working together in order to recognize that these types of investments mean something: $60 billion.

Yesterday in question period, the Conservatives were talking about foreign investment. More countries invested in Canada in 2023; according to the last numbers I saw, we were number one in terms of foreign investment coming into Canada. There is a private sector that the Prime Minister referenced.

Look at what is actually happening; there are a lot of good things taking place in Canada. We just need the Conservatives to open their eyes, or, I would suggest, if they have not learned anything from the last federal election, they will continue to be in opposition for many years to come. I will say that they are good in opposition—

Indigenous Affairs

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, it is clear that the Liberals have no concern for indigenous peoples and their rights. Their so-called consultations were nothing more than a publicity stunt to limit backlash. The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Assembly of First Nations and Métis nations expressed their concerns regarding Bill C-5. However, it was still rushed through to become law.

At the same time, the Liberal government is projecting cuts to Indigenous Services Canada. Making cuts to Indigenous Services Canada programs and services would mean losing investments in indigenous peoples' well-being and support. How will the Liberal government support indigenous peoples' well-being?