Mr. Paul Thompson
With respect to the importance of moving to domestic production, there has been a significant shift over the course of the pandemic to more domestic supplies. Dr. Kochhar spoke about the NESS in particular, but if you look more broadly at procurement of PPE, our estimates are that about 50% of the contracts are with domestic companies and about 40% of the value is going to domestic companies..
Jean Yip (Scarborough—Agincourt)
Thank you.
We will now move on to Mr. Dong for five minutes..
Mr. Han Dong (Don Valley North, Lib.)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This study is great. It kind of takes me back to where we were in 2020. We were fighting a war against COVID-19 and a war we weren't prepared for. I remember, while the health care workers were fighting on the front line, the entire population was working together, whether donating PPE or looking after a neighbour or a friend in quarantine.
Then we had our MPs and senators working together. I remember the days when we had those technical briefings on a daily basis. We put aside politics and would give ideas, observations and public service. And you were there every day taking the advice and acting on it.
The entire nation was fighting against one single enemy. I really miss those days, by the way.
With that, I just want to say a sincere thank you to Public Health and especially to the procurement folks. You guys worked magic in a hyper-competitive market. It's not buying product to satisfy wonks. It's actually buying product to save lives.
So every country was being super-competitive going to market and purchasing PPE. Unfortunately, Canada did not have the capacity to produce our own PPE, and you folks had to work around the clock—literally, because some of the producers around the globe are in different time zones. So I just want to say a sincere thank you to the witnesses here today.
To Mr. Thompson, can you tell us how your department, in a very short period of time, secured the amount of PPE Canada needed? In Parliament we talk about how the provinces are really having shortages, but we actually never see the bottom of the barrel. It was because our international procurement was doing the magic for a short period of time, and then domestic production capacity caught up. But tell us, what exactly did you do to secure those contracts?.
Mr. Paul Thompson
As I alluded to in my remarks, a lot of it was just pure effort at the beginning, with the teams working around the clock. But it was also leveraging flexibilities we introduced to make it easier to secure products, such as the ability to delegate authority so we could move quickly, and to use sole-source contracts or advance payments where required.
Those were just some of the flexibilities we needed, because we knew when there was a supply available, we needed to move super-fast to secure it..
Mr. Han Dong
Exactly.
On the report, 50% of the suppliers got this financial viability assessment. That means 50% didn't. Can you tell us what percentage of the contracts weren't honoured—i.e., for whatever various reasons they couldn't deliver the product at the end of the day?.
Mr. Paul Thompson
With respect to situations where there was advance payment as part of the mix, the vast majority of those were delivered in accordance with the contract. And in the very small number of cases where there didn't happen, there's legal action to recover the payments. But it was a successful endeavour in the vast majority of cases, and the goods and/or the services were delivered in accordance with the contracts..
Mr. Han Dong
To build on this success going forward, do you see perhaps a need to develop an emergency procurement protocol so that in case we have a global pandemic or something major happens, the government can have a different set of rules in terms of procurement that will protect the public interest and the integrity of the system? Meanwhile, we get products procured quickly..
Mr. Paul Thompson
That is certainly one of the lessons learned, and the Auditor General's report is helpful in this regard as to how we can institutionalize some of these practices and make sure that we approach it more systematically.
We have a checklist, as was alluded to earlier, so that we know when we're in a situation like this we can follow a set of predetermined procedures. We have procedures in place to rely on financial experts, for example, on this issue of financial viability of the suppliers.
Compared to the beginning of the pandemic, it has been a lot more systematized for if and when we face similar situations going forward. We still are facing challenges, for example, with procuring rapid tests, which is one of the key areas where we continue to push..
Jean Yip (Scarborough—Agincourt)
Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
I would like to thank the witnesses for coming today.
We need to suspend the meeting to go in camera.
Members, you will have to log off and log in for the in camera part of the meeting.
Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera].
Carol Anstey (Long Range Mountains)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador. Our ridings share a lot of commonalities, and we hear a lot of the same things at the doors. It is absolutely true what he is saying. People feel that Ottawa is so far away that politicians are completely out of touch, and they just do not trust them.
My concern is that we are continuing in the same vein and giving the Liberals way too much power to make decisions that are not in the best interests of Canadians or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. .
Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Mr. Speaker, it has been less than two months since the election.
What parts of this bill will please the people my colleague met while going door to door?.
Carol Anstey (Long Range Mountains)
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my colleague was listening throughout my speech, but several times I made a plea to the government to repeal the antidevelopment legislation. That is what would make the people of my riding happy. .
Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon)
Mr. Speaker, I am almost one of the last to speak before the final passage of this bill. Numerous questions remain unanswered, which is normal, because there has been limited debate on this bill. We have heard from almost no witnesses and we did not have the opportunity to move many amendments. This bill was tabled in a rush to respond to the tariff crisis. I will say right off the bat that I am not an engineer. I am a social worker and manager; I managed shelter beds. However, I must admit that I fail to understand how this bill responds to the tariff crisis.
It is strange because Mr. Legault, the Premier of Quebec, spoke with the Prime Minister of Canada today and asked him to act quickly to support the sectors that have been affected by the U.S. tariffs for a few weeks now. Those include the aluminum and steel sectors, but also the forestry sector, which is not mentioned much on the other side of the House. The Liberals have trouble saying “forest” and “forestry industry”.
Quebec's premier told the Prime Minister of Canada today that something had to be done for Quebec's regions, where the forestry industry creates good jobs. The sector is really struggling. I do not understand what the bill we are debating will change or improve for people in Quebec's forestry, aluminum and steel sectors.
I think it is an excuse to act quickly, justify the urgency and grab powers that are excessive and akin to those in the Emergencies Act. There is nothing to justify this urgency. There is nothing to justify botching the debate on this bill, which literally transforms the way of doing business and reflects the Liberals' affront to democracy. After a short four weeks of work and after the prorogation of Parliament, when we had not sat since December, the first thing the government did was introduce a bill that we did not even have the opportunity to debate. We cannot get on board with that.
I may be a bit suspicious, but how does it look when a bill is rushed through right before summer, when people are spending more time grilling than watching television? It certainly limits exposure to criticism. Nobody will make the Liberals justify their actions. That goes double for the Conservatives, because they are complicit.
In the last Parliament, our Conservative colleagues called us the “Liberal Bloc”, but nothing beats the Liberal-Conservative alliance. They are thick as thieves. I saw them all smiling and having fun during the vote earlier. Folks on both sides of the House are happy. At last, they can impose their vision, ignore laws and trample on provincial jurisdiction. No obstacles will stand in their way. Gone is the need for accountability, transparency or consultation with indigenous nations, Métis peoples and the territories. This is unprecedented, yet no one seems upset about it.
Only Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party members dared to stand up and cry foul. I am a down-to-earth person. I am all about facts, and I like to do the research, but I have failed to find an answer to the question I asked off the top. I think we are being scammed. They want us to believe there is an emergency, but it does not justify this bill.
I want to point out that the Premier of Quebec said something to the Prime Minister of Canada. I would like to quote him, because these are his words, not an interpretation. Our premier said:
However, I pointed out that projects on our territory must be identified based to our recommendations, and the environmental assessment must be performed by our government.
This morning, I was listening to the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, who did not seem to acknowledge that we were talking about a Quebec environmental assessment, saying it was probably going to be Canada's environmental assessment.
I think it is pretty clear to everyone what is going on.
We disagree with the second part of the bill because these discretionary powers, the ability to govern by decree without consultation, which the government is proposing in collusion with the Conservatives to circumvent who knows how many laws, are beyond the pale. We are talking about laws that were passed because of a need to protect species at risk and our water. These laws serve a purpose. After all, they were passed here, in the House of Commons. They were passed because of abuses, because nature, biodiversity and the environment were not being respected. People went too far. That is why laws were passed.
This bill proposes to suspend them. The government wants to suspend these laws for any project deemed to be in the national interest, but I cannot find a definition of that in the bill. The words “national interest project” appear 23 times, but I cannot find a definition. I cannot find it because it does not exist. It exists only in the mind of the minister who will decide whether a particular project is in the national interest. This is serious.
The people across the floor have the audacity to say that this will boost the economy and build a stronger Canada. One thing is certain. Lawyers are going to make money. This bill will not survive. It will be challenged by civil society groups, by indigenous nations, perhaps even by a province. That is because it makes no sense. It makes no sense, especially considering how it was passed, without democratic debate, without consulting citizens, without consulting scientists. This is serious.
I was elected in 2006. I have been a member of Parliament for almost 12 years. This is the first time I have experienced a situation like this. This is the first time I have seen such disrespect for this democratic institution, the Parliament of Canada. When something like this is done in a hurry and pushed through, I always wonder who benefits. Who stands to gain from this?
I wonder about our Prime Minister's transparency. We know that Brookfield owns railways, a sector that will be impacted by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants, which will be impacted by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns pipelines and even a company that builds and operates nuclear power plants, which will also be impacted by Bill C‑5.
By refusing to disclose his financial situation, is our Prime Minister not leaving himself open to the appearance of a conflict of interest?.
Arielle Kayabaga (London West)
Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had many opportunities to work with my colleague, but I think she is well liked here in Parliament. I think she can appreciate that using a word like “scammed” is a bit of an exaggeration.
I would like her to consider the fact that Canadians asked us to do this. This is the mandate that Canadians sent us here to carry out. We won 44 seats in Quebec because Quebeckers also want us to build an economy that works for all Canadians. I am sure they would not be pleased to hear the word “scammed” being used in the House today..
Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon)
Mr. Speaker, I highly doubt that Quebeckers voted for the Liberals so they could implement the Conservative agenda. Quebeckers voted for the Liberals because they were afraid of the Conservative leader, Mr. Poilievre, and they were afraid of Trump. They felt safe with the current Prime Minister.
However, they never voted to be handed a bill that will impose a pipeline and other unwanted projects on Quebec, with no prior discussion about choice or environmental assessments.
I highly doubt that is what Quebeckers chose..
Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière)
Mr. Speaker, it is clear, I think it goes without saying that we do not share the same opinion on this issue.
We understand the Bloc Québécois does not want projects to be fast-tracked, particularly projects allowing for a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, liquefied natural gas projects and pipelines.
There is one thing, however, on which I agree with my colleague, and that is the lack of transparency by the Prime Minister. She talked about it at the end of her speech. It is rather troubling. We agreed on some amendments with the Bloc Québécois to ensure the government would have to comply with ethics laws.
I would like my colleague to say a few words herself about this lack of transparency and the current Prime Minister's many conflicts of interest..
Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon)
Mr. Speaker, that would deserve a long answer, but I would like to tell my colleague that we agreed on a few important amendments: removing the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Indian Act so that they are excluded from Bill C‑5. However, without the participation of the Bloc Québécois or the NDP, with the support of these Conservative amendments, this was not part of the original bill.
What worries me, and I will say this sincerely, is that there was an amendment that was rejected by both sides, the Conservatives and the Liberals. It was the one that made it clear that provinces and indigenous nations had to be consulted before projects were approved. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted against that. I do not call that being in agreement.
If I may, we agree on the first part of the bill. We are pleased that it was split, because there are benefits, in part 1, to eliminating interprovincial barriers, especially for dairy farmers and slaughterhouses..
Marilène Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague. She said it; she is a pragmatist.
Someone said earlier that Quebeckers had voted for a Liberal government. I would like to hear her opinion on the fact that Quebeckers may have voted against themselves. Proposed section 7 states, “Before recommending that an order be made...the Minister must consult”, if he considers it appropriate, with indigenous peoples and the provinces and territories, for example.
The minister will consult if he thinks it is worthwhile. In my opinion, that is not respecting the provinces.
I would like to know if my colleague thinks that is what Quebeckers voted for..
Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon)
Mr. Speaker, obviously not.
If I do so say myself, Quebeckers will never agree to a pipeline running through their territory without first being consulted and without an assessment by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. Not a chance.
I will say quite frankly that all members of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party will fight, to the death, any project of that nature..
Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre)
Mr. Speaker, over the last short while, because, of course, we were given very little time, I have expressed very serious concerns about Bill C-5 as it relates to the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples, the protection of our environment, and workers' rights. I would like to thank my very brilliant colleague, the member for Vancouver East, for helping us split the bill to ensure that the Liberals and the Conservatives cannot hide behind interprovincial trade barriers to violate indigenous rights and accelerate the climate emergency.
In spite of the amendments, my concerns remain. The building Canada act constitutes a clear breach and violation of indigenous rights under the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Yesterday, in his press conference, the Prime Minister insisted that indigenous peoples are “at the heart” of Bill C-5. In a way, he is correct. The violation of the rights of indigenous peoples is indeed at the heart of this bill, and indigenous leaders who travelled to the Hill this week have confirmed this loud and clear.
In response to questions both at committee and in the House, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations failed repeatedly to provide clear answers to the serious concerns raised by indigenous people and leaders. Bill C-5 would have serious and far-reaching implications, as it would allow ministers and the Governor in Council to determine what indigenous rights “may be adversely affected” or what will “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”. However, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations seems content to simply state that section 35 rights of the Constitution Act of 1982 are mentioned in certain provisions of the bill, or that her government will establish a $40-million advisory circle for what she characterized as “guidance”.
As legislators, we are guided by the rule of law. We are guided by the Constitution and treaties, and for the last 150 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has been providing clear guidance with respect to aboriginal rights and treaty rights.
Furthermore, Bill C-15 requires that the government must ensure that all laws of this Parliament are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 19 of UNDRIP reads, “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples...in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”
I asked the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations at committee if this obligation was respected. Her response was no. Why? It is because Bill C-5 was, in her words, an “accelerated” process. The minister likes to point out that section 35 rights are mentioned in Bill C-5 and will be upheld, but always remains unconvincingly vague about how her government will achieve that. Allow me to provide just one example around modern land claims agreements.
Modern land claims agreements, considered as treaties under subsection 35(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982, contain distinct environmental and review processes in which the indigenous signatories have a direct involvement and participation in decision-making and appointments. These processes would be replaced by ministers and cabinet under Bill C-5. That constitutes a substantial amendment to these treaties and agreements. This normally and legally requires the consent of indigenous signatories. Consent has not been obtained from indigenous peoples to make these substantial changes.
The grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, in his correspondence with the government, correctly reminds us that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is a modern treaty within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution. As such, it has a constitutional status that prevails over any inconsistent legislation. Consequently, Grand Chief Wapachee has specifically proposed the following, and I quote: That the proposed building Canada act expressly provide that it shall not apply to any project to be carried out, in whole or in part, in the territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
This is just one example of many that compels indigenous leaders to strongly believe that Bill C-5 has the very real potential to lead us all to the courts, with the equally real risk of further delays and job losses. We are not building a strong economy. We are building cases for the Supreme Court of Canada. It is the kind of legislative behaviour that has resulted in the federal government spending between $500 million and $1 billion annually fighting indigenous peoples' rights and status in courts.
Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler claimed, “If you pass this Bill C-5 it will be a long hot summer.... We will not sit idly by and watch any government whether it's Ontario or Canada...come to our territory and take...whatever they want because it is ours.”
It is not just the rights of indigenous peoples that are being violated. The building Canada act risks eroding workers' rights, giving the minister the ability to bypass critical legislation protecting workers and eroding standards surrounding health and safety. Even beyond these glaring attacks on workers, Bill C-5 would also be a job killer since the government failed to undertake the necessary consultations and fulfill its constitutional obligations, meaning the legislation would inevitably get tied up in the courts, stalling any sort of economic growth.
Beyond these issues, countless environmental organizations have warned that Bill C-5 would accelerate the climate emergency, placing countless people across Canada at risk. In fact, one in four Canadians is suffering the adverse health impacts resulting from the climate emergency. Ecojustice says the bill gives “sweeping power for the Prime Minister and his cabinet to exempt major projects from Canada’s most important federal health, safety, and environmental laws” and that it encourages “backroom politicking and closed-door negotiating with powerful corporations.”
Right now, half our country is literally on fire. The health of one in four Canadians is being impacted by extreme weather events, and these events will only get worse, as we know. Weakening environmental standards will only make this worse in the future. Nobody voted for an undemocratic concentration of power, violations of indigenous peoples' constitutional rights, environmental degradation or attacks on workers.
The Liberals, supported by the Conservatives, are holding our country hostage to prioritize big corporations' interest over everything else. We urge the government to slow down, to reflect and to not let the bill go through in its current form. We urge the government to honour its obligation to obtain free, prior and informed consent and to significantly amend the bill to uphold constitutional obligations..
Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the approach that the NDP has chosen to take on Bill C-5. The member and I both represent Winnipeg ridings. Both of us understand what Canadians, and Winnipeggers in particular, want to see. They are very much concerned about the economy. They are concerned about jobs. They like the aspect of having one Canada economy.
We have Premier Wab Kinew, who understands that, has been working with other provincial jurisdictions and participated in the first minister's conference that was hosted by the Prime Minister. There is a great team approach, yet we have the NDP playing around. It is just becoming more and more isolated and irrelevant to the whole debate.
Why does the member not recognize what the people of Winnipeg, and Canada, said during the last election? They want a one Canada economy..
Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre)
Mr. Speaker, thank goodness for the member for Vancouver East for splitting the bill. The NDP does support removing interprovincial trade barriers and will be voting in favour of that part of the bill.
What we will not vote in favour of is violating constitutional rights, violating the section 35 rights of indigenous people, violating section 35(3) constitutional obligations, violating UNDRIP, violating environmental standards and violating the health and safety of workers. We will be proudly voting against this nation-building scheme that is going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada..
Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent and heartfelt speech. We hope that it will open the minds of some members in the House.
I would like her to comment on the following. Does she think that this bill is consistent with the reconciliation movement that we have been pursuing with indigenous peoples for several years now? Does it fit in with that, or does it take us in a completely different direction?.
Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre)
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just asked me a question. He represented, up until recently, a part of Winnipeg with the highest number of kids in care. Indigenous people are very supportive of building a strong economy. Indigenous leaders, in fact, have said we are not against it. What we are against is the violation of our constitutionally enshrined rights.
This is going to put us decades backwards. Any strides we have made in terms of reconciliation, we are going to lose if the Liberals and the Conservatives continue to team up and pass this bill. What is it going to look like? I was around during Idle No More. This is going to be Idle No More 2.0 because we will not sit idly by while our rights are being violated..
Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ever-diligent and vociferous attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and holding the government to account. The government, and particularly the member for Winnipeg North, seems to claim that under this bill, part 2 of the bill, it actually respects indigenous rights through its consultation provisions. The Liberals seem to be oblivious about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the consultation requirements stipulated in that.
I wonder if the member can enlighten, particularly, the member for Winnipeg North..
Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre)
Mr. Speaker, I find it quite colonial with the member for Winnipeg North, particularly because indigenous peoples and nations from across this country have been very clear that the government has not fulfilled its duty of free, prior and informed consent. Organizations including AFN, ITK, NAN and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs have come forward and called out the government. They have not received—.
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
I have a point of order from the member for London West..
Arielle Kayabaga (London West)
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that we use parliamentary language. Calling another member of Parliament any name is not accepted, so maybe the member could retract that..
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
I would ask all colleagues to be judicious in their language, and if the member would be willing to retract the one offending word, we can carry on..
Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre)
Mr. Speaker, I will not retract the word, calling the government “colonial”. I will not..
An hon member
Oh, oh!.
Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre)
I said his words were, his approach, and I—.
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
Order.
The time has now expired for that. I will take it under advisement. I thank the member for London West. We will take it under advisement. We will review the blues and get back to the House.
We are now resuming debate.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands..
Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mr. Speaker, I will recognize the territory from which I speak today: I am at the annual general meeting of Friends of Nature, a wonderful small group in Nova Scotia on the territory of the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy. When I accepted the invitation, I foolishly thought we would be having an election on the fixed election date, but here we are on June 20, the last day of the very short session of the current Parliament following the election, under a new government.
I know it is a new government, because I do not think this could have happened under any other government. This is called the new government's honeymoon period. I used to think, I like to think, that in honeymoon periods, acts were consensual. This is anything but consensual, but Bill C-5 is before us now for its final vote.
I want to take a moment, if it is all right, to say that I do appreciate the Speaker's ruling earlier today that we will vote on part 1 and part 2 separately. I want to make it clear that the Greens definitely support bringing down interprovincial trade barriers. We desperately want to see a national approach that makes Canada at least as co-operative and effective between and among different jurisdictions as is the European Union, which deals with separate nation-states, many of which were certainly in the oral history of my childhood from parents who lived through the Depression and the Second World War. We certainly knew countries that now co-operate fully in the European Union were, a short time ago, relatively speaking, at war with each other.
Here we are in Canada, and we have less co-operation. The European Union, for instance, has a viable electricity grid that works across all its jurisdictions. It was able, after Putin's invasion of Ukraine, within months, to plug Ukraine into the EU electricity grid. We do not have one in Canada that we can plug into. The province of Nova Scotia has very, very high utility rates, and it stills burn coal for electricity, which other provinces have ceased to do. It could buy everything it needs from Hydro-Québec if only we had the interties to have a Canadian electricity grid. It has been something that hurts our economy and certainly hurts our businesses and many sectors.
We do not act like a country, but worse than that, we often do not think like a country, so I was very excited to hear the new Prime Minister's commitment to bring down interprovincial trade barriers. We certainly also need labour mobility; we need to recognize it across provinces, and that means working with many regulatory bodies. For instance, for doctors, we need to deal with the appropriate medical societies within each province to make sure the health care professionals we so desperately need can be recognized more quickly.
It is an awful shame, then, that I find I have to vote against part 1, and that is because of concerns raised to me directly by the Canadian Cancer Society with the way the bill is drafted with respect to the way a recognized standard at a provincial level could be recognized and could replace a stronger standard at the federal level. Had the bill not had the programming motion that pushed it through before anyone could think twice, I think that could have been fixed quite easily.
Most legislation like this would include a carve-out, an exemption, for health and environmental protections, but we were too busy. The Prime Minister and his government were in too big a rush. I question why that would be. It certainly could have been fixed easily. I cannot vote for it as it now stands.
I do not want to see another Walkerton in Canada, and I do not want to see what happened in England when Maggie Thatcher got rid of unnecessary regulations: the spread of mad cow disease. We really do not know the cost of getting rid of valuable regulations until we are dealing with a crisis. Many regulations can be removed. Much red tape is in our way, but we need to look before we leap. The bill is all about leaping before we look, and definitely that is the case in the “build Canada fast” section, the identification of projects in the national interest.
That is the key question. What is a project of national interest? How do we determine which projects are truly in the best interests of all nations in Canada? How do we find the common destiny of all provinces, territories and indigenous peoples? How do we determine which projects are truly in the national interest?
The bill leaves it a mystery. What is a project in the national interest? There is a definition section in the bill that tells us that a project in the national interest can be found in schedule 1. Of course, schedule 1 is blank, and we can find out what is going to be put there because cabinet is going to decide, and there are no fixed criteria or anything reviewable later on as to why a project was in the national interest.
It could be that the main factor taken into consideration is polling. That would not be against this law, and there would be no way to challenge it in court later. It could be that everything put forward by cabinet is absolutely brilliant, and I will be cheering for it, like an east-west-north-south electricity grid or a public transit system that works for people in the way the inquiry on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls wanted. It was made a call for justice that there be public transit so that vulnerable people like indigenous women and girls would not be forced to hitchhike, because there is no way to get from A to B in a wealthy, modernized, industrialized country like Canada unless someone has the money to own a car or buy a plane ticket.
There are many projects in the national interest that we need. The Prime Minister said that free, prior and informed consent and the rights of indigenous people are “at the heart” of Bill C-5. I do not want to rewrite his speeches for him, but I suspect what he really wanted to say was that it is in his heart. It is what his government cares about, but it is nowhere to be found in Bill C-5.
I suspect our first big national interest project is going to be something of a moon shot. It is going to be building a time machine, because we cannot get free, prior and informed consent unless indigenous peoples, first nations, Métis and Inuit are in at the very beginning of the conversation, before it gets put on the national interest project list. For that, my friends, we need a time machine to go back in time to do the consultations that will not have happened, because with the way the legislation is drafted, it cannot happen in advance.
I am all for a time machine, but I do not think it is very practical. I do not think it is likely to happen. I think like many leaders in indigenous communities do. As Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said in her testimony to the House and the Senate as national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and as Jody Wilson-Raybould has said, our former minister of justice and someone who really understands the rights and title of first nations in section 35, this bill would do violence to the efforts we have made, inadequate as they are, toward reconciliation.
This bill has clauses that are completely unbelievable, such as clause 6, which would deem that decisions made in the future are already going to be in favour of the project proceeding, even before we have either listed the project or studied it. That is a fascinating provision, a provision that only Henry VIII could have come up with. The kinds of powers the government would be taking onto itself are unknown in modern times, and they should have remained so.
I will be voting against both part 1 and part 2, with reluctance. I would love to be on board. I want the government to succeed because Canada has to succeed. We must have a successful country that stands up against the arrogance and threats of the Trump administration, but we do that through economic sovereignty. We do not do it by imitating Trumpian moves, like deciding the central power needs more power. We do not do it with the bravado of signing statements that are meaningless. Laws in this country should be drafted with precision. Words have meaning when they are in legislation. Words in press releases and promises are good, as long as governments respect the things they have said in elections, but to say they mean something and care about something is rather a hollow claim when they produce a bill like Bill C-5.
This makes me so very sad. I think it is a real tragedy that the first bill introduced by this new government is so dangerous, as we have seen in recent days and weeks.
All I can say at this point is that it breaks my heart. I want to be with the new government. I want to be with my colleagues and stand for one Canadian economy, but we need to think it through. We cannot make it so with the bravado of a great signing ceremony and a bill whose laudable ends are undermined by appalling drafting and a claim for powers that no government should hope to achieve..
Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
Mr. Speaker, it is a very significant day today. The Prime Minister and Liberal candidates from across the country made a solid commitment as part of our election platform to build one Canadian economy. It was on page 1 of the platform. Sometime in the next half-hour, we are going to be passing Bill C-5. That is a checkoff. That is something the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus pushed through to fulfill a solemn commitment we made to Canadians.
I will conclude by saying that in the last number of weeks, we have seen all sorts of initiatives from a new Prime Minister and a new administration. We are making a difference. We will continue to work hard for Canadians.
Could the leader of the Green Party explain why, in a nutshell, she feels that this bill should not pass?.
Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mr. Speaker, the bill cries out for amendments and improvements to ensure that the projects chosen to be in the national interest meet some kind of binding set of criteria. It needs to create a system. Why have a law in place, as opposed to a wonderful declaration that everyone signs? If it is a law, it should have accountability mechanisms. It should be reviewable by a federal court if the promises and commitments made by the government are not observed.
The bill has nothing mandatory. Even the much-vaunted major projects office is a discretionary move. It is claimed the bill would do all sorts of things: We will not proceed unless there is consensus and we will not proceed unless there is a private sector proponent. The Minister of Natural Resources said this in the main estimates, but nothing in the bill says that..
Lori Idlout (Nunavut)
Uqaqtittiji, the Liberal government, a minority, which to me does not indicate that this is such a massive decision by all of Canada, has successfully pushed through legislation that would violate the rights of indigenous peoples. It does so first of all by the process of getting Bill C-5 through in such a fast-tracked way, but it will continue to do so because of the way the legislation is crafted.
I wonder if the member can share with us the impact this bill would have on indigenous children. Will they be part of this great economy that the Liberal and Conservative coalition has led in Bill C-5?.
Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member of Parliament for Nunavut, for her extraordinary courage, her championing of indigenous rights and her consistently calling out the importance of intergenerational love. There has been a lot of trauma visited on indigenous peoples, and I do not know anyone who has been clearer than the hon. member for Nunavut.
The offences done to indigenous rights in the bill are significant, and the offences to children, whether settler culture children or indigenous children, in undermining our democracy, will cause, I am afraid to say, serious damage. I have never seen a government expand powers to the centre and then, when the so-called emergency is over, relinquish them to go back to normal levels of respect for Westminster parliamentary democracy. The role of a prime minister is first among equals..
Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East)
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate. In rushing through Bill C-5, not only does it, of course, violate indigenous rights, as we have heard, but what are the implications for the environment of overriding environmental standards?.
Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mr. Speaker, it is a strange thing to find myself more shocked now than I was by things that the Harper government tried. We saw bills pushed through before, but I have never seen an omnibus bill with such breadth and such impact on multiple laws that dictates future decision-making. Again, the use of a time machine would be handy. It violates the basic precepts of study, exploration, hearing from witnesses and making amendments based on hearing advice from those who are experts in the field.
As for the effect on the environment, it could be quite substantial because it is a matter of luck at this point. What projects get approved? Who knows? It is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory all over again..
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
It being 5:07 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 16, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the first question is on part 1 and on the short title.
If a member participating in person wishes that part 1 and the short title be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair..
Arielle Kayabaga (London West)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call for a recorded vote. .
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
The recorded division on part 1 and the short title stands deferred.
The next question is on part 2, including the schedule, which belongs to part 2.
If a member participating in person wishes that part 2, including the schedule, be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. .
Arielle Kayabaga (London West)
Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division..
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
The recorded division on part 2, including the schedule, stands deferred.
Pursuant to an order made on Monday, June 16, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the third reading stage of the bill.
Call in the members..
(The House divided on part 1 and the short title, which were agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #33.
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
I declare part 1 and the short title carried.
The next question is on part 2, including the schedule, which belongs to part 2..
(The House divided on part 2 and the schedule, which were agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #34.
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
I declare part 2, including the schedule, carried.
The House has agreed to the entirety of Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, at the third reading stage.
(Bill read the third time and passed).
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
It being 5:49 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, June 16, the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 15, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.).