TranslatePolitics.ca

Tamara Jansen

Conservative 4:35 p.m.

“I want more time to debate the budget. The government is stopping debate on a big bill. That's bad no matter what we disagree on. Canadians aren't served well by this. The government has many problems. They don't want us looking too close at their budget.”

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 4:40 p.m.

“I'm fine with limiting debate sometimes. The government eventually has to get things done. Blocking debate is a tool for when the opposition isn't cooperating. But the government jumped straight to blocking debate this time without even trying. They didn't give us any technical briefings. They didn't put the budget on the agenda. Then suddenly they say debate has to be limited because it's urgent. That's not what blocking debate is supposed to be for.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if we had had more time to debate this bill, we could have discussed the parts that should have been removed. That would have made the member for Acadie—Bathurst happy. We could have discussed the parts that could have been voted on separately. Since the member for Acadie—Bathurst is going to vote in favour of time allocation, we will not be able to do so. However, all joking aside, time allocation does serve a purpose. The government usually begins by letting things take their course. We have debates, and legislation moves forward, but all of a sudden, a roadblock springs up. Opposition parties sometimes act in bad faith. At some point, since the government has budgetary responsibilities, it will have no choice but to impose time allocation to move the process forward in the face of the opposition parties' bad faith. That is what it is for. That is why this standing order exists. In this case, however, the government introduced a bill, denied the opposition parties a technical briefing, did not put the bill on the agenda for debate, and then suddenly on a Friday morning, it announced that it was going to limit debate because nothing had been done for three weeks and time was now of the essence. That is not how time allocation should be used.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jessica Fancy

Liberal 4:40 p.m.

“I want to change the subject to Quebec now. Maybe talking about Quebec's economy will distract from how we limited debate.”

Jessica Fancy

Liberal 4:40 p.m.

“I'm talking a lot to fill time, and to make you look bad for wanting to spend less. I want the government to spend more of other people's money on industries I like.”

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 4:40 p.m.

“I'm glad you brought up aerospace. The Liberal government doesn't have an aerospace strategy. Unions want one. Industry wants one. But the government just spends money here and there without a plan. That's no way to run a country.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy hearing the member talk about aeronautics and aerospace. There have been developments. We are happy to see that. For years, the federal Liberal government has refused to have an industrial policy on aeronautics and aerospace. We do not have one. There are even members from my region who go around telling unions that people do not want one, that it is pointless and that even the industry does not want one. However, we heard from the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada at the Standing Committee on Finance last week. They said that they wanted and needed a civil and military strategy, because there was none, and that a procurement process was not enough. On the day the government needs to order aircraft, it is unacceptable to have to decide whether to import them from Sweden, order them from the Americans, or open new factories. That is what happens when there is no strategy. I think there are some fundamental questions that need to be asked, because we have an electioneering government that goes from announcement to announcement, and there is never any thought about the long term, particularly in the case of the aerospace industry.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jessica Fancy

Liberal 4:40 p.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words about northern development. This minor amendment gives the government more power over mining rights and indigenous communities. It won't hurt investment, only help it! These small changes are transformational for the whole north. The government is doing good work and partnering with indigenous people.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. This afternoon, I would like to talk about the Territorial Lands Act, the amendments to the act, economic development and nation building in the north, as vice-chair for the rural caucus. I am rising to speak to the proposed amendments to the Territorial Lands Act that are contained in Bill C-31. At the outset, I want to be very clear. Changes to this initial act are necessary. They would strengthen Canada's sovereignty, security and economic future, while deepening our partnership with the Inuit and supporting northern and rural communities across the country. I am speaking as vice-chair of our national rural caucus, and I want to underline something that is very fundamental. Rural, remote and northern Canada is very much a part of the country's nation building and where it is actually happening. We will be there to allow it to continue to happen. Today, we are finally making some of these communities feel like they are finally at the table. I am going to focus on how these amendments would support indigenous self-determination and responsible economic development, as well as long-term nation building in the north. In terms of a changing global economy, the global economy, as we know, is rapidly evolving. Countries are competing for secure supply chains of critical minerals, minerals essential to clean energy, advanced manufacturing and national security. Canada, particularly northern and rural Canada, has an enormous opportunity here. With that opportunity comes responsibility. As competition intensifies, Canada must ensure that its natural resources are developed responsibly and strategically, and in a way that aligns with our national interests. That includes making sure that our rules reflect some of today's realities, hence the amendment. Nunavut and rural Canada are at the centre of nation building. The Arctic is more important than ever to our sovereignty, economic growth and national security. Nunavut is at the heart of our future here up north. I want to be honest about something. Projects that will define Canada's next century, like our critical minerals, energy corridors, ports in the north, roads and infrastructure, are not being built in downtown cores. They are being built in rural, remote and northern communities. For far too long, these communities powered our economy without a full voice in shaping that. That, with this amendment, is changing, and it must continue to change. Mining is already the cornerstone of Nunavut's economy. It creates good-paying jobs, supports local businesses, builds infrastructure and strengthens communities. In 2025, mineral production in Nunavut was projected at $3.74 billion, demonstrating that importance not only to the territory but to Canada as a whole. For rural and northern Canadians, this is what economic inclusion looks like. It looks like jobs close to home. It looks like infrastructure that lasts generations. It looks like communities that are growing and thriving. Why do these types of amendments matter? Canada's free entry system remains an important strength. It has supported exploration and investment for decades. Today, there is a gap. The current system does not allow Canada to act when mineral rights could be used in ways that conflict with some of our national interests, whether related to economic security, sovereignty or critical infrastructure. Bill C-31 would address this gap. It would introduce a targeted national interest safeguard, which would allow the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, to act in specific cases. Examples of this include cancelling existing mineral rights when necessary, preventing new rights in sensitive areas and temporarily closing lands to protect some of these strategic priorities. Examples also include ensuring notification and fair consideration of compensation. This is not about overreach; this is about responsibility. In terms of strengthening our investments through this amendment, and I want to address this directly, it would not hurt investment, but strengthen it, because a free entry system would remain in place, as it always has. These measures would be targeted, limited and only used in exceptional circumstances where national interests are at stake. In fact, they would also provide something that investors value deeply: certainty. They would make clear that Canada has strong rules, a stable framework and the ability to protect strategic assets. For rural and northern economies, that certainty is essential. It ensures that investment continues, that projects move forward and that communities benefit. The bill is part of a broader effort to support nation building, especially where it is actually taking place. I would like to remind everybody again that nation building in Canada today is happening in rural, remote and northern regions. It is happening in our energy corridors, our mining developments and our ports and transportation hubs. It is happening with clean energy infrastructure. I have a clean energy project in my riding right now in South Shore—St. Margarets, our Mersey wind project, which is a new direct competitor for Nova Scotia Power. It is a larger-scale clean energy project in our area, which we have not seen before in Nova Scotia. There are also projects like the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link. There are also projects like the Grays Bay road and port project. This is also about Iqaluit's hydro project. These are transformative projects, and when we look at transformational things, they do not happen overnight. They do not happen within one year. They do not happen within two years. These are transformational projects of which, over the next decade, we are going to really see the benefits and reap the rewards. They connect with communities, and they create jobs. These projects also help strengthen sovereignty and reduce emissions. Importantly, they ensure that rural and indigenous communities are not just participants, but leaders and partners in Canada's economic future. The amendments to Bill C-31 would also help ensure that mineral tenure does not interfere with these nation-building projects. In terms of indigenous partnerships, like how we were talking before about having indigenous people at the table as leaders, I would like to talk about indigenous partnerships and the devolution processes. The legislation is also grounded in respect for Inuit self-determination, for modern treaties and also for indigenous leadership, so engagement has taken place with the Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and indigenous partners alike. These amendments would support a broader path toward Nunavut's devolution: the historic transfer of land and resource decision-making to the Nunavummiut. This is also about ensuring that decisions are made closer to home by the people most affected. We are forward-thinking, so we are also looking at safeguards for some of these processes. There would also be a forward-thinking measure in this amendment. It would ensure that Canada's resources are developed responsibly, strategic infrastructure can move forward, Inuit priorities are respected, rural and northern communities benefit fully, and our sovereignty and security are protected. This is about preventing risk while also unlocking opportunity. In conclusion, we are at a turning point. Global demand is rising, competition is intensifying and Canada has what the world needs, but success also depends on getting it right. It depends on recognizing that rural, northern and indigenous communities are not on the margins of our economy, but at the centre.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Serge Cormier

Liberal 4:50 p.m.

“I want to cheer for my new friend and take some credit for spending a billion dollars of taxpayers' money on harbours. I'm sad that a mine closed in my riding and want the government to spend more money and change rules to force business to help my riding again.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, and I just want to thank my colleague for her speech. It is wonderful to work with her. She is a new colleague. She is doing great work. I know how good she is. She is representing a rural riding just like me. In the last spring economic statement, there was $1 billion for small craft harbours, and I know that she was a big part of this investment. She was talking about some of the amendments that are in this bill, and she was talked about mining. I had a lot of mining industry in my region back in the day, but it has closed. There were 2,000 people laid off at a mine in my region back in 2013. Now with these new amendments that are being putting forward and this new process, we see new mine projects coming into play. Can the member tell us if amendments like that would also help her riding with new projects of this kind?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jessica Fancy

Liberal 4:55 p.m.

“I want to associate myself with an industry group that likes our budget. The budget spends more of other peoples' money on the mining industry and I think that will buy us their support.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from Bathurst for that. On Thursday, there will be an announcement. I will be at the AGM for one of the Nova Scotia mining associations. With regard to what some of the mining associations are saying about our federal budget update, I would like to read into the record the following quote from the Mining Association of Canada: MAC applauds today’s federal budget, which contains many measures that will enhance the competitiveness of Canadian mining and accelerate investments in critical minerals. Budget 2025 responds directly to several requests from the Mining Association of Canada and follows through on a number of mining-related commitments—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Costas Menegakis

Conservative 4:55 p.m.

“Prices are rising and Canadians are struggling. The government claims it's doing well. An omnibus bill is no way to fix these problems. We need more debate so the government can't hide from criticism.”

Jessica Fancy

Liberal 4:55 p.m.

“We're debating the bill like we're supposed to. The Territorial Lands Act mostly stays the same, we're just adding some protections for Canada's security and stuff. And the amendments will help indigenous people too.”

Martin Champoux

Bloc Québécois 4:55 p.m.

“This bill is huge and we barely got a briefing. The government is trying to rush it through without enough time for debate or input from experts. This is a big deal, we need to take our time and get it right.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is 300 pages long. Consultation with the opposition parties has been minimal. There was no actual technical briefing, apart from the one held three weeks after the bill was introduced. It seems quite likely that even before MPs managed to get a briefing, reporters or others outside the House of Commons had received more information than members of Parliament. The bill addresses some very important issues. It expands subsidies to the oil and gas industry. It also allows the possible use of hydrogen production using methane as a clean energy, which contradicts what Hydro-Québec says. It seems to me that Hydro-Québec knows what it is talking about where clean energy is concerned. My colleague just told the Conservative member that we are debating Bill C-31 in the House. That is true, but the Liberals are limiting our debate time with this gag order. Does my colleague agree that such important issues as this warrant greater consideration for the opinions of experts and opposition members?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jessica Fancy

Liberal 4:55 p.m.

“We need to pass this bill right now to help people in my riding. You're just complaining instead of debating.”

Elizabeth May

Green 5:00 p.m.

“I want to complain about changes to the Pest Control Products Act in these budget bills. I didn't get to speak on Bill C-30. Now I see more changes in Bill C-31. The government wants to reduce pesticide regulation. That's bad! Pesticides kill things. Why cut health and safety? We must uphold science-based decision-making. The government seems to have a pro-pesticide bias. That's very concerning.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for sharing her time with me. Unfortunately, I disagree with her last comment that we have time to debate the bill now. Given the gag order, enough time to debate the bill is exactly what we do not have. I want to speak to what is happening here. I am going to throw in Bill C-30, because I was not allowed to speak to it. We rushed through it so fast that I did not get a speech at second reading. For Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, back-to-back omnibus budget bills, both had a reduction of debate. Due to the newly minted majority Liberal government, we were not given the normal amount of time to have debate before moving to the vote at second reading. I am sure the Speaker recognizes how often I have raised this concern in the House. It has accelerated. It is becoming de rigueur. It is almost with every single bill that we are told we have had enough time to talk about it and we move on. There are many things that one would focus on with respect to two omnibus bills. What I want to focus on in the time I have is with respect to the one we are debating today, Bill C-31, which is 331 pages long. I lugged it around with me all weekend. There is only one part of it that I want to raise now, but there would be more. When we get to committee perhaps I will get an opportunity to say a word or two. These are budget implementation acts. Bill C-30 has now passed second reading and Bill C-31 is what we are debating now. One would think there would be a very strong connection to the budget. That is what the point is; these are implementation of the budget. In Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, I want to talk about the significant changes to the Pest Control Products Act. We remember that the 2025 budget was all about build Canada strong. There is one line about the Pest Control Products Act, which is now the subject of changes in Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Here is one line from budget 2025, which states, “the government proposes to amend legislation to remove cyclical pesticide re-evaluations to enable modern, risk-based oversight.” According to Prevent Cancer Now and Ecojustice, one of the country's leading environmental law groups, this is not about modern risk-based oversight, but about reducing the regulation of pesticides, reducing environment and health and safety controls that can actually affect human health, as well as the environment, in ways that I found completely shocking. Because the debate on Bill C-30 was shut down after three hours, there was not time for every member or even every party to make a speech. I did manage to ask the parliamentary secretary for finance when it was first tabled how it was that there were these provisions to so weaken pesticide oversight and pesticide reviews. I asked if it would be possible to have a section of the bill, division 8, go to a committee on health or the environment to be studied. The hon. parliamentary secretary said he would look into it, but I have heard nothing further and, as far as we know, this is going to the finance committee, not a health and safety committee. I have not had an opportunity to speak to this in the House, and it does relate to Bill C-31, because it is more of the same. Bill C-30 says, which is astonishing, that if a minister decides that a pest control product is so dangerous it cannot be used, that usually is the end of the matter. This refers to a pesticide, and this covers herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides and all manner of products that are intended to kill living things, insecticides and herbicides being the most common. However, now, because of Bill C-30, which as I said was pushed through second reading after three hours of debate, the cabinet can override the Minister of Health or the Minister of Environment if they consider it “necessary to do so to protect national economic security, regional economic security, or national food security.” Going back to the original budget, we see that they have thrown in this justification here and there. Sometimes, it is referenced as having to make these measures because they want to move to, as I mentioned before, modern oversight. In other places, it is referenced as though we can bring down the cost of groceries if we use more pesticides. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Having worked on pesticides in this country as an environmental lawyer, and before that as an activist, I have worked on pesticide issues in this country since 1975. In any case, no government has ever attempted something as reckless as what Bill C-30 would do in saying that the decision of the minister responsible, when a substance is too dangerous to be used, could be overturned by cabinet, at cabinet's discretion, if it seems that it affects, astonishingly, “national economic security, regional economic security or national food security”. These are the kinds of cuts to regulations that Margaret Thatcher engaged in that led to mad cow disease. We do not cut corners on health and safety. We do not cut corners on pesticide regulation for national economic concerns, overriding a minister of environment or a minister of health. It is quite surprising. I was unable to speak to Bill C-30 at second reading debate, and now we have come to Bill C-31. I have to say I was astonished, in reading the 331 pages of Bill C-31, to find that it too takes aim at the Pest Control Products Act. This time it is found in division 13 in changes to the Pest Control Products Act to reduce the mandatory review every 15 years to look at a substance and, if the situation has changed, to have an evaluation. They are routine, but the bill we have before us today would change the review, and this gets murky. As someone who practised law, I know that one of the things we hate to see in new legislation is a change to the definitions because, by the time most legislation has gone around for a couple of years, and this legislation has been around for decades, the meaning of the words is clear, so there is not a lot of room for uncertainty and not knowing what we are dealing with. In this legislation, we suddenly have the discretionary initiating of an assessment and then, if the minister is convinced that, on the basis of the assessment, the health and safety and the environmental risks of a registered pest control product have increased significantly, then the minister may have a re-evaluation, but the minister may also decide at any time to stop the re-evaluation. Therefore, there would be no certainty and, certainly from a public health point of view and from an environmental point of view, this would fundamentally weaken the regime within which we use chemicals and products that are, by definition, intended to be toxic. They are intended to kill things. It is not an accident. That is their purpose. Therefore, the notion that we would no longer have cyclical re-evaluations undermines science. That is the bottom line. Ecojustice, one of Canada's pre-eminent environmental law groups, finds that this must be amended, that we must maintain cyclical re-evaluations and uphold science-based decision-making. Earlier today, one of the members here presented a really important petition, and I am wondering if these things are not connected. Is there a pro-pesticide bias emerging from the current government that connects with cuts at the Swift Current agriculture research station in Swift Current, Saskatchewan? It was the country's pre-eminent research hub for many years in organic agriculture. Does the current government dislike the idea of organic agriculture? Does it want to promote pesticide-based agriculture? Again, here we are. This bill has had, as far as I can count, about one and a half days of debate. In its first day of debate, most of the debate time was taken up by the farewell speech of the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. The time is up, but we have to let Canadians know that this is unacceptable.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:10 p.m.

“We need time allocation because the Conservatives are trying to stop the bill. Without time allocation, it would never pass. That's just a fact.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the average number of days that the House will sit is around 130 or 135 days in any given year. Currently, there are 35 or so pieces of government and Senate legislation before the House. We then need to take into consideration the number of opposition days that are given, and then the number of days when we actually have debates. Surely to goodness, and the leader of the Green Party has been around for a good number of years now, she has seen that time allocation is sometimes a tool that is necessary to pass legislation. Given the performance of the Conservative Party members and their commitment to defeat the legislation, if we did not have time allocation, the bill would never pass. The member knows that. Would the member not at least concede that fact?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Elizabeth May

Green 5:10 p.m.

“I'm upset over the time allocation. We want the majority Liberals to study the bill properly. Rushing this will come back to bite them.”

Andrew Lawton

Conservative 5:10 p.m.

“I want to criticize the government's budget and I think my Green Party colleague is too trusting. The Prime Minister makes big promises but doesn't always keep them. Be careful believing the Liberals.”

Elizabeth May

Green 5:10 p.m.

“I'm the only opposition member who voted for the budget because the government made me a promise in writing. But they broke that promise just 10 days after I voted for it. I wouldn't have supported the budget if I knew they'd go back on their word so quickly. This government breaks promises faster than any I've ever seen.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I did vote for it, and I stand here as the only member of the opposition who voted for the Liberal budget, because not only was I given oral promises, but the commitment against putting forward investment tax credits for enhanced oil recovery was also in black and white and printed in the budget. That was reversed within 10 days of that vote, so yes, I would have voted against the budget had I known the Liberals did not intend to keep words that were printed in the budget. That is quite something. It is a new record. Some governments forget what they said they were going to put in a budget, and two or three years later they have not done it, but I have never seen a promise in a budget reversed. Neither had the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, which is why he is going to be leaving this place.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mario Beaulieu

Bloc Québécois 5:10 p.m.

“Too many subsidies for oil. The government can't meet its climate targets now. And hydrogen from methane isn't clean. Only Quebec makes green hydrogen right.”

Elizabeth May

Green 5:10 p.m.

“I agree with my Bloc colleague. It's a tragedy. I'm very disappointed. The government can't meet its Paris climate targets now. That's bad for security and the economy. The government and Prime Minister don't care about the future. I don't understand how they can do this.”

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 5:15 p.m.

“The Prime Minister says he understands the crisis. But if he really does, why is he acting this way?”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

Tamara Jansen

Jean-Denis Garon

Jessica Fancy

Jessica Fancy

Jean-Denis Garon

Jessica Fancy

Serge Cormier

Jessica Fancy

Costas Menegakis

Jessica Fancy

Martin Champoux

Jessica Fancy

Elizabeth May

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Elizabeth May

Andrew Lawton

Elizabeth May

Mario Beaulieu

Elizabeth May

Jean-Denis Garon