Mr. Paul Thompson
4043-03-22 12:20:00
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)
4043-03-22 12:20:00
Thank you. We will now move on to Mr. Dong for five minutes..
Mr. Han Dong (Don Valley North, Lib.)
4043-03-22 12:20:00
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
4043-03-22 12:20:00
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
4043-03-22 12:20:00
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
4043-03-22 12:20:00
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
4043-03-22 12:20:00
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
4043-03-22 12:20:00
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)
4043-03-22 12:20:00
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].
Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
2026-02-09 16:15:00
Mr. Speaker, this debate is centred around accountability in terms of the minister or the government not honouring or respecting treaties, yet it is already written into the provisions. One of the most powerful and most senior institutions the government has is the Auditor General, who says the government should respect treaties, but the government ignores that. There are oversight committees that have been talking about exactly what is contemplated in this bill, and the government ignores it. To my colleague, I agree, but does this add or take away from the frustrations that first nations are experiencing in treaty bands today?.
Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Clarke)
2026-02-09 16:20:00
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member would be in a much better position to answer his question than I am. From my experience of talking to the first nations who are located within the riding of Northumberland, one of their big frustrations is the fact that they cannot get answers. They get pushed from one bureaucrat to another. They seek nation-to-nation communications, clarity and answers. They do not need another bureaucracy. They do not need another federal office..
John-Paul Danko (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas)
2026-02-09 16:20:00
Mr. Speaker, listening to multiple speeches today, it seems like the main objection is that this creates an additional bureaucracy, but that is ignoring the fact that this is actually built in consultation and collaboration with indigenous leaders and indigenous rights holders. What would the member say to those indigenous rights holders who are asking for this legislation?.
Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Clarke)
2026-02-09 16:20:00
Mr. Speaker, I would go back to the original point that ministers have the ability to set in place the accountability and the responsibility within existing legislation. Let us have a culture of accountability and responsibility. Let us implement the treaties. Let us walk, or in fact run, down the path to truth and reconciliation..
Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning)
2026-02-09 16:20:00
Mr. Speaker, we have a great nation. I think all of us can agree on that. We and those who came before us have worked to build a country that all Canadians can feel proud to be part of, but we are not perfect. We have not always lived up to our ideals as a nation. One area we have fallen short is when it comes to our obligations to our indigenous people. Our nation is a relatively young one. The relationship with indigenous people predates the establishment of Canada as an independent country, with first nations negotiating treaties with the British Crown. With Confederation, Canada took on the responsibility for those agreements, agreeing to hold up our end of the bargain. Too often, we have not lived up to our commitments, observing neither the spirit nor the letter of law. I hope that we have learned from past mistakes and that the distrust in the relationships between Canada, indigenous people and those who came here later can be mended. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia: Indigenous treaties in Canada are constitutionally recognized agreements between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. Most of these agreements describe exchanges where Indigenous nations agree to share some of their interests in their ancestral lands in return for various payments and promises. On a deeper level, treaties are sometimes understood, particularly by Indigenous people, as sacred covenants between nations that establish a relationship between those for whom Canada is an ancient homeland and those whose family roots lie in other countries. Treaties therefore form the constitutional and moral basis of alliance between Indigenous peoples and Canada. In our fact-based world, we are sometimes uncomfortable with the idea of anything having a moral basis. The idea of morality, of something being instinctively right or wrong, seems to have gone out of fashion in some circles, which may be why the Liberals have introduced this legislation, Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act. By creating a new position and accompanying bureaucracy, the Liberals are attempting to deflect from the fact that they have not lived up to their moral obligations. Instead of doing what is right, they are trying to deflect attention away from what they are not doing, which is not living up to their responsibilities under the treaties signed with first nations. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called on the federal government to “Renew or establish Treaty relationships based on principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect, and shared responsibility for maintaining those relationships into the future.” In order for that to happen, the Liberals must first admit that they have failed to respect the treaties between our country and its first nations. On October 21, the Auditor General released a report on first nations as a follow-up to the six previous audits done since the Liberals formed government in 2015. Those audits covered a range of programs important to the health and well-being of first nations communities, including programs providing access to primary health care, emergency management services and safe drinking water. Despite Indigenous Services Canada increasing its program spending by 84% in the past six years, there remain significant challenges in improving services and outcomes for first nations communities. For example, there are nine communities with drinking water advisories that have been in place for a decade or longer. How can this be acceptable in Canada in 2025? Whatever happened to Justin Trudeau's promise in 2015 to end drinking water advisories. Sadly, his words seem like more hollow promises, cynically uttered by Liberals to gain votes, knowing they would not deliver on their promises. According to the Auditor General, Indigenous Services Canada has made unsatisfactory progress in addressing the needs identified in previous reports; 53% of those issues are not resolved. Do the Liberals understand their failure in this matter? Instead of ensuring that the identified needs of indigenous communities are being met, they are now proposing to create more bureaucracy. We do not need a commissioner for modern treaty implementation; we need a government that understands the needs of Canadians and that lives up to its commitments to them. It should not take another bureaucracy or bureaucrat to ensure that Canada does the right thing. It should not take another bureaucrat to ensure that Canada lives up to its treaty commitments. Keeping our word used to be a Canadian value. Why does the government think it is necessary to invent a new bureaucracy to ensure that it keeps its word? Is it that the Liberals are so used to making promises and then not keeping them that they need someone to keep them in line? We need to live up to our treaty obligations. We should not need a new government department in order to do that. It is important to note that the proposed commissioner would deal solely with the modern treaties between Canada and our first nations. The modern treaty era began in 1973, after a Supreme Court of Canada decision that recognized indigenous rights for the first time. The decision led to the first modern treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975. Since then, Canada has negotiated and signed 26 treaties with indigenous groups in Canada, 18 of which contain self-government provisions or associated self-government agreements. Before 2000, modern treaties were negotiated in the form of comprehensive land claim agreements, and only a few modern treaty partners negotiated self-government agreements separately. Since 2000, all modern treaties have included provisions for self-government. The federal government and modern treaty partners co-developed Canada's collaborative model treaty implementation policy in 2023. Conservatives support the treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. We recognize that more needs to be done to advance those rights, which include self-determination and self-government. Conservatives, under former prime minister Harper, negotiated five modern treaties in the span of six years. In more than a decade, the Liberals have negotiated none with the 70 indigenous groups currently negotiating with the government. True reconciliation comes with meeting our commitments to Canada's first nations. We should not need a new level of bureaucracy to make sure that, as a nation, we keep the agreements we sign. The Auditor General has pointed out where we are failing in our treatment of indigenous peoples. Years are going by, and problems are not being solved. No wonder reconciliation seems no closer than it was a decade ago. Rather than demanding accountability from “Ottawa knows best” bureaucrats, the Liberals are proposing to create a new layer of bureaucracy, which of course means spending more money at a time when Canadians can ill afford it. There is no need for the bill. Rather than create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, why do the ministers and departments responsible for treaty negotiation and implementation not do their jobs?.
Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
2026-02-09 16:30:00
Mr. Speaker, if we look at what indigenous communities themselves would like, we see that the support of having an independent officer of the House of Commons seems to be a very strong step forward with respect to both reconciliation and a higher sense of accountability and transparency. Why does the Conservative Party not support the independence of that agent's answering to Parliament?.
Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning)
2026-02-09 16:30:00
Mr. Speaker, what is appointing bureaucrats going to do? There are no results being delivered by the government as far as this file goes. There has been nothing done and no progress made in the last 10 years. What is the point of appointing someone? It is just to add another bureaucracy. I do not think the community is looking for that. The community is looking for action and looking for results, and unless those results are delivered, there is no point in adding another bureaucracy..
Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île)
2026-02-09 16:30:00
Mr. Speaker, we have seen overwhelming support for this bill from first nations. I believe that the commissioner will be a watchdog who will conduct research and provide us with information so that we can enforce the treaties if the government fails to do so. That said, I think the commissioner should also have coercive powers. What does my colleague think?.
Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning)
2026-02-09 16:30:00
Mr. Speaker, I think the debate here is between delivering results and showing signals that really do not deliver anything to the people. The community wants results. It wants more action. It wants to see that things are progressing properly, and some of the issues the community is facing need to be resolved. That is what the community is looking for. How to approach that, in our opinion as the Conservative Party of Canada, is that we need to see results and we need to make sure that the people responsible for these files, the minister and the department, do their jobs..
Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock)
2026-02-09 16:30:00
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his great speech on Bill C-10. He could not have outlined it better. What we are really looking for from the government is a bit of action on a whole host of things. This bill is just adding bureaucracy instead of getting the government out of the way and doing the things that it says it is going to do, much the same way as it says it is going to build pipelines and then does not build pipelines. The government said it was going to build national infrastructure at speeds unseen before and we are not seeing this. Once again, we see the relationship with the first nations in this country. This is just an appeasement, just a smoke and mirrors kind of thing. Does the member have any comments on that?.
Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning)
2026-02-09 16:30:00
Mr. Speaker, in the last decade, the government has not negotiated a single treaty with the indigenous community. That tells us a lot. There are 70 groups right now negotiating with the government. They are going to continue to negotiate and negotiate, but no one, especially the government, is showing any results. The government is not showing us the truth of what it is doing. Unless we reach that point, it is really pointless to continue developing bureaucracy after bureaucracy. I believe the community is looking for action. It is looking for results and that is where the Conservative Party is standing on this issue..
Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni)
2026-02-09 16:35:00
Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree about the importance of the implementation of this commissioner to hold government to account. Often, treaties have been signed and those agreements have not been implemented. It has been uneven, inconsistent and ignored. We heard that this morning from Chief John Jack from Huu-ay-aht First Nations and Chief Wilfred Cootes from Uchucklesaht. They are calling for the commissioner to hold the government to account to ensure that when treaties are signed, they are actually implemented. Why are the Conservatives going against the calls to action by indigenous peoples in this country who want to work nation to nation to support their people and build a better, healthier Canada?.
Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning)
2026-02-09 16:35:00
Mr. Speaker, in the system that we have for our democracy, I believe that Parliament should keep the government in line. If we need to add layers and layers to keep the government in place, then what are we doing here? Why are we here? We are here to represent the people and defend their rights, and I think Parliament should have the power to do that, not another new bureaucracy..
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
2026-02-09 16:35:00
Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Budget; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Natural Resources..
Tako Van Popta (Langley Township—Fraser Heights)
2026-02-09 16:35:00
Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. What would it do? The enactment would provide for the appointment of a commissioner of modern treaty implementation. The commissioner's job would be to conduct reviews and performance audits of the activities of the government related to the implementation of modern treaties, or rather, the government's failure to implement treaties. This is a failure that the Office of the Auditor General, another agency of Parliament, has pointed out in numerous reports. For years, the Auditor General has been shouting from the treetops that the government must take the treaty process seriously, and for 10 years, the Liberals have done nothing. They have dragged their feet. Admittedly, this is not a problem of just the last 10 years; it has been brewing since the early days of Confederation. However, I must highlight that under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, Canada negotiated five modern treaties. Since then, in the last 10 years, there have been zero, which is the problem. The need to expedite treaties, as I said, goes back to the early days of our history, to the 1850s in British Columbia, when the British Crown claimed sovereignty over Vancouver Island and the mainland, what we now call British Columbia. There were some early treaties under Governor James Douglas, the Douglas treaties, over Vancouver Island. After that, subsequent governors and colonial legislatures dropped the ball. In 1871, British Columbia became part of the Canadian Confederation, and at that time, the federal government took over some of the responsibility for treaty negotiations under section 91 of the British North America Act, but it too dropped the ball. This is continuing right now. The Liberals are continuing not to pick up the ball, not to run with it. What are the Liberals doing? They are hiding behind this proposed legislation. They want to appoint a commissioner to take a look at all of this, to see why things have not been happening. This is another unnecessary bill from a government that is lacking creativity. It is becoming a crisis. The recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in the Cowichan Tribes case underlines what happens when the Crown does not follow through with its commitments to respect indigenous rights. What do we get? We get community unrest, economic uncertainty and confusion. What did the judge say in that case? She said that aboriginal title is superior to fee simple title, which is a basic form of land ownership that everyone understands and that forms the very basis of our modern capitalist system. Our economy, banking system, financial security, home ownership and retirement planning are all based on the concept of fee simple. Now people and businesses in the Richmond area, where these lands are, as well as right across the whole province, are worried that their fee simple title is not as secure as they thought it was. What is important too is that banks and financial institutions are also starting to doubt the indefeasibility of fee simple title. We have heard of some big real estate deals collapsing on account of banks feeling nervous. The provincial government steps forward and says it will guarantee those loans, but that is not the solution. The solution is to deal properly and effectively with the first nations people and enter into treaties. The land at the centre of this dispute is not in some remote area of British Columbia where the land is still owned by the Crown. No, it is right in the heart of metro Vancouver. There are commercial properties there, shopping malls, residential neighbourhoods and even a jet fuel tank station supplying nearby Vancouver International Airport. Quite frankly, Vancouver cannot operate without these lands staying pretty much exactly the way they are, so we have a very big problem. What is the solution? This speech is not about how to resolve the Cowichan lands challenges. I have some ideas, but that is not what we are talking about. Today we are talking about how we go forward with implementing modern-day treaties so we avoid ongoing issues like this and the economic uncertainty that arises. I raise this case only to point out how important and urgent it is that we move forward. Throughout B.C., there is a lot of work to be done. I am thinking of metro Vancouver and first nations communities in highly urbanized areas, like the Kwantlen First Nation in my home community of Fort Langley, or the Katzie First Nation in the northern part of my community, or the Semiahmoo in neighbouring White Rock. None of them have treaties, and they are losing confidence in the treaty process, so I welcome the debate, as people in my home province are concerned. However, it is not all negative. There is good news. In British Columbia, there have been some notable success stories in the ongoing quest to implement modern treaties. I want to talk about the Tsawwassen First Nation settlement of 2009. The Tsawwassen First Nation land, like the Cowichan land, is in metro Vancouver, surrounded by very valuable land. It is close to the port of Vancouver and the B.C. ferry terminal. There is a lot of good farmland there as well. This is one of the five modern treaties that were successfully negotiated during the Harper years, and it is a leading example of what can be done in an urbanized setting. The treaty transferred 724 hectares of land to the Tsawwassen First Nation community, which now holds it in fee simple. It is something they can take to the bank, which is not something they could have done under the Indian Act. The Tsawwassen First Nation community is acting on that. Its people have developed the land so that it is bringing prosperity to their community. They have a couple of very large shopping malls and industrial properties supporting the nearby port, and there is still lots of farmland available. Of the 724 hectares, I believe 500 is still farmland. This is very rich farmland, right in the Fraser River estuary, which supports Canadian food security and sovereignty. We have two examples coming out of British Columbia. One is a very good one, the Tsawwassen First Nation, and one is not so good, the Cowichan Tribes case. I suppose the latter might also be a good example of what could go wrong, underlining the urgency of moving forward. To get back to the main topic, Bill C-10, an act respecting the commission for modern treaty implementation, people who were expecting that the bill would actually accelerate the treaty process in British Columbia and throughout Canada will be disappointed. The bill is simply about setting up a new bureaucracy to keep an eye on existing bureaucracies that have failed time and again to get the job done. In my years in this Parliament, I have observed time and again how the Liberals act. Their politics is performative politics. They want to appear to be doing something about whatever is being debated in the Parliament of the day, the issues of the period. If major projects are being held up because of federal bureaucracy getting in the way, then let us set up a Major Projects Office. If housing is unaffordable and new houses are not being built, then we have an office for that too. Now, if indigenous treaty rights are not being respected, then let us set up a commission. However, it is not necessary. The Liberals appear to be doing something, but in fact, the bill before us would do very little to move the needle forward. I have just three words for the Liberals: “Do your job.” They should stop the performative arts, stop preening in front of the cameras, roll up their sleeves and, finally, for once, do the hard stuff. .
Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
2026-02-09 16:45:00
Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat unfortunate that Conservatives do not understand or appreciate the importance of having an agent of Parliament being assigned in this area. I think it would do wonders in terms of everything from the modern-day treaties to the whole movement towards reconciliation. I think they are underestimating the importance of reconciliation by not necessarily supporting Bill C-10. Does the member believe that there is any connection between reconciliation and the idea of having an agent of Parliament to deal with modern-day treaties?.
Tako Van Popta (Langley Township—Fraser Heights)
2026-02-09 16:45:00
Mr. Speaker, indeed, we already have an agent that is responsible for that. That agent is called the Auditor General. The unfortunate part is that the Liberals have not been taking the reports from the Office of the Auditor General seriously. That applies to many matters, including when reports comment on their lack of action on indigenous rights and settling treaties. That should have been done a long time ago. It is time for them to do their job. .
Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
2026-02-09 16:45:00
Mr. Speaker, representatives from that side of the House, the government, claim that the Conservatives have no idea what we are really talking about, when what we are talking about is accountability. I was a chief councillor. I was a chairman of the treaty negotiations. I was actually part of First Nations Summit, an advocacy group based out of Vancouver of all chief negotiators. I know of the six oversight committees that are actually fighting for basic accountability. There is also the Auditor General, the highest, most powerful, basically non-political group in Canada, who has been telling the government that it has to respect treaties. The only group in the House that does not respect accountability for treaty implementation is the government. Would my colleague agree that basically there are enough provisions in the treaty, as well as organizations that are demanding accountability from the government—.
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
2026-02-09 16:45:00
The hon. member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights..
Tako Van Popta (Langley Township—Fraser Heights)
2026-02-09 16:45:00
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley on the work he has done with the Haisla Nation and others in British Columbia for advancing indigenous reconciliation. I thank him very much for that. With respect to accountability, the member pointed out correctly that the Auditor General is the ultimate holder to accountability of the government, and that office is being ignored. I predict that the Liberal government would ignore what this commissioner would say..
Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni)
2026-02-09 16:45:00
Mr. Speaker, we heard again this morning about the uneven, inconsistent and sometimes ignored implementation of the treaty process. We have heard from the nations wanting this treaty commissioner to absolutely ensure that treaty implementation happens. Now, we hear Conservatives say, “Well, that is a waste of money.” However, what is costly is not implementing a treaty because, when treaties are implemented, it creates jobs. Those nations want to participate in the economy. They want to move forward. We hear also from the Conservatives all the time that the government should have done more. Absolutely, the government should do more, but so should the official opposition. Will the Conservatives admit that they need to ask more questions when it comes to indigenous issues in this place, as the official opposition?.
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
2026-02-09 16:50:00
Is the House ready for the question?.
Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
2026-02-09 16:50:00
Mr. Speaker, I understand that we will be carrying it on division..
Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
2026-02-09 16:50:00
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:41 p.m. so we could get into the late show..
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
2026-02-09 16:50:00
Is it agreed?.
Some hon. members
2026-02-09 16:50:00
Agreed..
2026-02-09 16:50:00
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved..
Tako Van Popta (Langley Township—Fraser Heights)
2026-02-09 16:50:00
Mr. Speaker, indeed it is the government's job to implement these treaties. As the opposition, our job is to hold the government to account, as it is that member's responsibility as well. We need the Conservatives to form government. I am thinking of the Harper days when we actually got the job done. It can be done, and we are waiting for the government to finally take action to get the job done..
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
2026-02-09 16:50:00
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. (Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee).
Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2026-02-09 16:50:00
Mr. Speaker, the late show has never come so early. I am rising tonight to raise an issue that I initially put before the House on December 9, 2025. I am rather proud of the fact that I seem to have been the first member of Parliament to have put this on the public record. Hopefully people noticed, and yes, there is a growing coalition who wants to raise awareness of the issue I first raised here on December 9. It is division 5 within the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-15, which, at over 600 pages, takes a while to read, get through and study. I want to categorically put it on the record right now that I see no sign that the Conservatives are filibustering Bill C-15, the omnibus budget bill. It takes a while to study a budget implementation act of over 600 pages. I also believe that since the bill was put up for first reading on November 18, there is no sign of delay since the House, by unanimous consent with my objection, adjourned a day early on December 11. We have only been back a little while, and 600 pages plus changing 20 different laws takes some time. I maintain, as I did on December 9, that the most egregious section of the bill is the one that says that a minister can, on personal discretion, deciding it is in the public interest, exempt the application of any Canadian law, except the Criminal Code, from application within their area of jurisdiction and that they will make this public not immediately, not soon, but according to the act, as soon as it is feasible, with no time limit on that. Since the time that people have become alarmed about this, there has been testimony before committee. Because, as we just did, we passed Bill C-15 on division at second reading, we did not have a recorded vote, which is why I have not been able to state on the record that I cannot possibly vote for the budget implementation act as currently drafted with the sections found in division 5. Since then, because it did pass on division at second reading, it has gone to the finance committee and other committees for study. I found it interesting, in going over the witnesses put forward, the ways in which the Liberals are trying to justify this extraordinary power grab by individual ministers to exempt any entity from the operation of any Canadian law except for the Criminal Code. The defence of this provision first started with the response by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, who answered and said that because “Canada has world-class innovators and entrepreneurs,” we need to build the strongest economy and “we are reducing red tape”, because division 5 of Bill C-15 is to amend the Red Tape Reduction Act. The hon. parliamentary secretary continued, “As part of this process, we are reducing red tape to broaden the use of something called regulatory sandboxes to help foster and spur research...and innovation.” Since that time, the concept of regulatory sandboxes has been expanded upon by the witnesses from the Treasury Board before the committee. The witnesses put forward that there were “misconceptions in the public domain”, and they wanted to explain all that because what they said to the committee was that regulatory sandboxes are a “well-established governmental tool” to allow the testing of innovative products. Where does this well-established governmental tool come from and where is it defined? Even after going back to amend the Red Tape Reduction Act, Bill C-15 does not include any definition of “regulatory sandbox”—.
Some hon. members
2026-02-09 16:50:00
Question..
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
2026-02-09 16:50:00
The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion 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..
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
2026-02-09 16:55:00
I have to interrupt the hon. member and proceed to the response. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources..
Claude Guay (LaSalle—Émard—Verdun)
2026-02-09 16:55:00
Mr. Speaker, as our economy pivots and modernizes, it is important to appreciate the fact that existing regulations may not fit the needs of new and emerging technologies. This can cause significant delays or even stop new products or services from entering the Canadian marketplace. Doing so can hamper Canadian entrepreneurship and innovation, reduce competition and make life less affordable for Canadians. That is why, in order to help regulation keep pace with innovation, our government committed in budget 2025 to expanding the use of regulatory sandboxes through amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act. As members know, regulatory sandboxes are commonly used devices that permit a new product or service to be tested in the marketplace under a temporary set of rules and controlled by regulatory supervision. This can help regulators safely decide whether to make any permanent regulatory changes to how that product or service should be regulated. Our government is of the view that regulatory sandboxes would help support economic growth, reduce red tape, and improve Canada's investment environment by permitting new products and new technologies to get to market in a safe and efficient manner. However, the concerns raised by the member opposite are valid. I would like to reassure my hon. colleague that it would not be the wild west; there would be guardrails in place. Indeed, the government has included safeguards in both the legislation and supporting policy to ensure that regulatory sandboxes would be used responsibly and consistently across the government. Our goal is to protect the economy, the environment and the welfare of Canadians in the use of regulatory sandboxes. Bill C-15 would not allow ministers to exempt any person or business from any federal law for broad policy purposes. For example, the legislation includes several safeguards, including providing clear time limits for exemption; requiring exemptions be in the public interest; requiring that public health, public safety and the environment be protected; and limiting exemption to individual entities. Exempting entire sectors of an industry or fast-tracking an entire major project is not within the scope. The legislation also includes explicit transparency and accountability requirements that would allow for continued oversight and prevent executive overreach. The minister would have to publish exception orders and an explanation of the decision-making process, while protecting confidential business information as required by law. Furthermore, the President of the Treasury Board would have to table an annual report in Parliament listing all exemption orders issued in the previous fiscal year, the rationale for each, and the ministers responsible. This oversight mechanism would ensure that Parliament is informed and able to scrutinize the use of these authorities..
Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2026-02-09 16:55:00
Mr. Speaker, I will try to watch the clock carefully, because I cannot possibly take apart even the so-called conditions that are found in proposed paragraphs 12(3)(a) through 12(3)(e) at page 301 of the bill. They are highly discretionary. The bill would do no such thing as create guardrails; it may create small children waving by the side of the road. It is not a piece of legislation that is well drafted, nor are any of these terms defined, including “public interest” and “regulatory sandbox”. The minister would be allowed to work within their own discretion. Furthermore, the transparency could be as much as a year after the exemption has been granted saying that a federal law does not have to be obeyed. I would prefer better drafting. I urge the government to amend Bill C-15. If it means what the government has its Treasury Board Secretariat say in committee, it ought to have drafted it to say so..
Claude Guay (LaSalle—Émard—Verdun)
2026-02-09 17:00:00
Mr. Speaker, ministers could not use these provisions to exempt themselves or others from obligation under statutes such as the Conflict of Interest Act, for example. The authorities would apply it only to laws within a minister's portfolio and only for the purpose of testing and innovating under regulatory supervision. Nor is it intended to bypass important protections and lead to regulatory changes that compromise safety or environmental standards. Regulatory sandboxes are a valuable tool. We would use them to support innovation and to help grow our economy, making it more competitive by creating environments and processes for companies to grow in a way that continues to protect the best interests of Canadian workers, consumers, businesses, the public and the environment..
Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City)
2026-02-09 17:00:00
Mr. Speaker, Canada needs a pipeline. We are a sovereign, resource-rich nation. We produce energy the world wants, yet instead of building the infrastructure that would allow us to sell that energy at full value, the Prime Minister has tied our economic future to a net-zero framework so complex, so conditional, that we are assured it will take forever and cost the max. It goes without saying that approving a nation-building pipeline is not the responsibility of the NDP Premier of B.C; it is a federal responsibility, and it rests squarely on the Prime Minister's desk. Let us be clear about what is happening in the background. I want to demonstrate that by following a Canadian dollar, one loonie, through the system as it now stands under the Prime Minister. Let us follow it through the Pathways carbon capture project, which the Prime Minister has attached as a condition to the pipeline Canadians so badly need. First, the carbon capture project itself is risky. It is massive. It is expensive. It is not about affordability; it is about net-zero ideology once again. In a normal market, investors look at that and say there is too much risk and no return. Since the free market is not interested in these mega-expensive net-zero projects the Prime Minister wants so badly, what happens next? The government steps in and sweetens the deal. This is called de-risking. Ottawa offers investment tax credits. It builds guarantees and backstops. It creates funds designed to absorb losses if things go sideways to ensure there is little risk for the project investor. In plain language, the government tells the investor not to worry because, if this does not work out the way they hoped, the taxpayer will carry part of the risk. Right there, our humble little loonie transmogrifies, as Calvin and Hobbes would say. It changes from a free-market loonie into an insurance loonie. It moves onto the taxpayers tab. Here is where Canadians should really stop and pay attention. There is talk that our retirement savings could now be part of this. The Prime Minister talks as though pension savings could be a tool for the government's nation-building agenda. However, is that what Canadians voted for? Did they elect him to find a clever way into the CPP cookie jar? Every paycheque, whether for teachers, public servants, even the translators working right now to ensure my words are heard in French, includes a mandatory deduction for their retirement. This is their money, and it was deliberately placed out of politicians' reach years ago, which was supported by the Conservatives, precisely so they could not redirect Canadians' retirement savings towards political priorities. Pension funds were designed to be protected from political interference. Their job is to invest responsibly, not to chase ideological projects dressed up as policy. Here is my key point: We know that, if a project is too risky, it should not qualify for pension investment, but with fancy footwork, the government could de-risk it on the back of the taxpayer and suddenly the project would look safe enough on paper. The spreadsheet improves and projected returns stabilize, not because the risk disappeared, but because middle-class Canadians are now holding the bag. When things go sideways, who carries the risk? Public dollars will absorb losses. The middle-class family will absorb the loss in the form of taxes and inflation. That loonie quietly shrinks in purchasing power. This is ultimately a question of integrity and fairness. In a free market, risk and reward go hand in hand. Those who take the risk bear the consequences, good or bad. That connection creates discipline and it forces careful decisions, but when the government alters that relationship and stacks the deck, someone loses. When will the Prime Minister stop hiding behind expensive, inflationary, ideological preconditions and approve a pipeline to get to the Pacific to let Canadians get full value for the resources we have in abundance?.
Claude Guay (LaSalle—Émard—Verdun)
2026-02-09 17:05:00
Mr. Speaker, we are committed to making Canada an energy superpower, both in clean and conventional energy, while protecting our environment, including northern B.C. coasts, and respecting indigenous rights, something we did not hear in the member's elocution. So far, the government has not received a proposal for the project being referenced by the member opposite. If this pipeline is to be considered, as with any other project, the government is committed to robust consultation with indigenous people. We have been clear that indigenous people must benefit from our efforts to get major projects built faster. Last summer, the Building Canada Act was passed, an important step toward increasing certainty surrounding infrastructure and natural resources projects. The Major Projects Office is streamlining federal approval processes to accelerate the completion of major projects. These projects include ports, transmission lines, critical mineral projects and both clean and conventional projects. In the Building Canada Act, we emphasized that one of the criteria is that it should advance the interests of indigenous people. Today, many of the projects referred to the Major Projects Office include indigenous communities as partners with ownership stakes and co-operation agreements. This includes the Red Chris mine expansion in northwest B.C., which is being developed in partnership with the Tahltan Nation. It includes the Iqaluit hydro project in Nunavut, a 100% Inuit-owned renewable energy project. It includes Canada's Crawford nickel project in northern Ontario, with agreements having been signed with Mattagami First Nation, Matachewan First Nation and Flying Post First Nation for early employment opportunities and long-term economic benefits. These nation-building projects show how indigenous partnerships with the government and industry are unlocking Canada's potential, making Canada an energy superpower while honouring indigenous rights. This effort is bringing jobs to our communities across the country and higher wages to Canadian workers and is creating opportunities for indigenous people. The government is increasing regulatory certainty, attracting capital and protecting our industry from dependence on American exports as we face the trade war imposed on us by the United States. As part of this work, we concluded a historic memorandum of understanding with Alberta. It is based on concrete solutions, more rigorous and effective industrial carbon pricing, significant private sector investment in clean technology and responsible energy development for workers and communities. The MOU will bring about, as the member mentioned, the Pathways project, a massive carbon capture project reducing emissions across the oil sector as we work toward net zero by 2050. When it comes to the west coast pipeline, I understand that the Government of Alberta has begun consultations with indigenous rights holders. Premier Danielle Smith already stated that Kitimat is no longer being considered as one of the options for the pipeline project. Important discussions have already been held with Premier David Eby, who expressed openness to such a project if the conditions are met. Our approach is based on collaboration with indigenous people, Alberta and British Columbia. It is about working together to get projects built faster with certainty, while creating jobs and strengthening our economy..
Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City)
2026-02-09 17:05:00
Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not need another process or another framework. They need a pipeline. We are a resource-rich country watching other nations move ahead while we debate conditions and caveats. A pipeline to the Pacific is not an experiment. It is not a theory. It is basic infrastructure, the kind Canada has built before and the kind for which they should already be moving dirt. Under a Conservative plan, this would be straightforward and less costly. We would approve the project, set a clear route, respect federal jurisdiction and get shovels in the ground, with no ideological add-ons, no extra net-zero preconditions and no endless detours. The reason the pipeline is not built is not because Canada cannot do it. It is because the Prime Minister will not. He keeps adding conditions. He keeps outsourcing responsibility. He keeps pretending a province holds a veto over a project that is squarely federal. Leadership means making a call. My question is simple: When will the Prime Minister approve a pipeline to the Pacific so that Canadians can finally get to work?.
Claude Guay (LaSalle—Émard—Verdun)
2026-02-09 17:10:00
Mr. Speaker, the government will always work with indigenous people to find the right way forward when it comes to building energy and natural resource projects. These projects can strengthen our economy, diversify our trade and build the resilience we need to face the trade war with the United States. At the same time, they can represent incredible economic opportunities for indigenous people. That is why many projects referred to the Major Projects Office include indigenous nations as partners with equity stakes. That is why one of the first actions of the government was to double the indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion. We are making Canada an energy superpower, while respecting indigenous rights..
John Nater (Perth—Wellington)
2026-02-09 17:10:00
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 5:12 p.m.).