Bill C-69 (Historical)

An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Impact Assessment Act and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Among other things, the Impact Assessment Act
(a) names the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada as the authority responsible for impact assessments;
(b) provides for a process for assessing the environmental, health, social and economic effects of designated projects with a view to preventing certain adverse effects and fostering sustainability;
(c) prohibits proponents, subject to certain conditions, from carrying out a designated project if the designated project is likely to cause certain environmental, health, social or economic effects, unless the Minister of the Environment or Governor in Council determines that those effects are in the public interest, taking into account the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, all effects that may be caused by the carrying out of the project, the extent to which the project contributes to sustainability and other factors;
(d) establishes a planning phase for a possible impact assessment of a designated project, which includes requirements to cooperate with and consult certain persons and entities and requirements with respect to public participation;
(e) authorizes the Minister to refer an impact assessment of a designated project to a review panel if he or she considers it in the public interest to do so, and requires that an impact assessment be referred to a review panel if the designated project includes physical activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act;
(f) establishes time limits with respect to the planning phase, to impact assessments and to certain decisions, in order to ensure that impact assessments are conducted in a timely manner;
(g) provides for public participation and for funding to allow the public to participate in a meaningful manner;
(h) sets out the factors to be taken into account in conducting an impact assessment, including the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(i) provides for cooperation with certain jurisdictions, including Indigenous governing bodies, through the delegation of any part of an impact assessment, the joint establishment of a review panel or the substitution of another process for the impact assessment;
(j) provides for transparency in decision-making by requiring that the scientific and other information taken into account in an impact assessment, as well as the reasons for decisions, be made available to the public through a registry that is accessible via the Internet;
(k) provides that the Minister may set conditions, including with respect to mitigation measures, that must be implemented by the proponent of a designated project;
(l) provides for the assessment of cumulative effects of existing or future activities in a specific region through regional assessments and of federal policies, plans and programs, and of issues, that are relevant to the impact assessment of designated projects through strategic assessments; and
(m) sets out requirements for an assessment of environmental effects of non-designated projects that are on federal lands or that are to be carried out outside Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which establishes the Canadian Energy Regulator and sets out its composition, mandate and powers. The role of the Regulator is to regulate the exploitation, development and transportation of energy within Parliament’s jurisdiction.
The Canadian Energy Regulator Act, among other things,
(a) provides for the establishment of a Commission that is responsible for the adjudicative functions of the Regulator;
(b) ensures the safety and security of persons, energy facilities and abandoned facilities and the protection of property and the environment;
(c) provides for the regulation of pipelines, abandoned pipelines, and traffic, tolls and tariffs relating to the transmission of oil or gas through pipelines;
(d) provides for the regulation of international power lines and certain interprovincial power lines;
(e) provides for the regulation of renewable energy projects and power lines in Canada’s offshore;
(f) provides for the regulation of access to lands;
(g) provides for the regulation of the exportation of oil, gas and electricity and the interprovincial oil and gas trade; and
(h) sets out the process the Commission must follow before making, amending or revoking a declaration of a significant discovery or a commercial discovery under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the process for appealing a decision made by the Chief Conservation Officer or the Chief Safety Officer under that Act.
Part 2 also repeals the National Energy Board Act.
Part 3 amends the Navigation Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) rename it the Canadian Navigable Waters Act;
(b) provide a comprehensive definition of navigable water;
(c) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister must consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(d) require that an owner apply for an approval for a major work in any navigable water if the work may interfere with navigation;
(e)  set out the factors that the Minister must consider when deciding whether to issue an approval;
(f) provide a process for addressing navigation-related concerns when an owner proposes to carry out a work in navigable waters that are not listed in the schedule;
(g) provide the Minister with powers to address obstructions in any navigable water;
(h) amend the criteria and process for adding a reference to a navigable water to the schedule;
(i) require that the Minister establish a registry; and
(j) provide for new measures for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Part 4 makes consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament and regulations.

Opposition Motion—Oil and Gas Emissions Cap

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise to speak in the House on behalf of the people of Calgary Midnapore.

The motion we have before us today is, "That the House call on the Prime Minister to immediately repeal the oil and gas emissions cap, which in effect is a production cap.” We are standing here today talking about the emissions cap, but what we are really talking about is not just the emissions cap. We are talking about the future of a nation.

Failure is not an option here. Failure is not an option, because hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the line. Failure is not an option, because seniors are starving and are going to food banks. They are on fixed incomes. They do not know where they are going to find their next meal. Failure is not an option, because we have record youth unemployment. This is an epidemic in our country. Failure is not an option, because housing costs are through the roof. Failure is not an option, because investment is fleeing this country.

When we are talking about the emissions cap, we are talking about the obstacles that the Liberal government created for over a decade, obstacles that prevented Canada from becoming a prosperous nation. We are a nation today that has created a system of dependence and a culture of desperation, one that could have been avoided by investing in our natural resources sector.

The Prime Minister won his mandate for one reason, and one reason only. Canadians, for better or for worse, put their trust in him to do what he said he was going to do: build a prosperous Canada.

The Conservatives gracefully supported Bill C-5 in the spring. We want to see the government succeed in its major projects. We did everything we could to give licence to the government. We wanted to give the Prime Minister everything he needed to begin these major projects, to fulfill his promise to Canadians. However, we have yet to see one new project announced or one shovel in the ground.

Relative to today's motion, we have yet to see the Prime Minister commit to taking the first steps to achieving these major projects, of which eliminating the production cap is only one step. We have offered the following suggestions to the Prime Minister and the Liberal government several times, on which they refused to act: repeal Bill C-69 and repeal Bill C-48.

Bill C-69, as members will remember, is the “no more pipelines” bill, the bill that prohibits any type of genuine infrastructure being built in this country that allows for our prosperity. Bill C-48, the “no more tankers” ban, does not permit Canada to export its natural resources abroad.

We could also eliminate the industrial carbon tax. The government likes to say it has eliminated the carbon tax. We know that this is not true. The industrial carbon tax still exists, and this is another step that the Prime Minister needs to take, in addition to immediately repealing the oil and gas emissions cap.

Until the Liberals take these steps, they have yet to prove to us, the official opposition, and to Canadians that they are serious about digging us out of this hole that they created and restoring quality of life to Canadians. Canadians are suffering.

The government just received an F from Food Banks Canada on food security. One cannot get a worse grade than an F. Canadians earning less than $75,000 are spending 57.3% on groceries, utilities and transportation. Food inflation is rising 70% faster than the government's inflation target. For all of these reasons, Canadians are suffering. For all of these reasons, the Prime Minister needs to keep his promise of restoring Canada's prosperity.

What hope has the Prime Minister given the official opposition? What hope has the Prime Minister given Canadians? His record from before he arrived in the House of Commons is not encouraging. We all know the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, so let us take a look at the past behaviour of the Prime Minister.

When asked by the leader of the official opposition at industry committee if he supported Justin Trudeau's decision to veto the Northern Gateway pipeline, the Prime Minister replied, “given both [the] environmental and commercial reasons...I think it's the right decision.” That is interesting. It sounds like a 180 compared with his position today.

Then, just six months later, at COP26, the Prime Minister said, “we have...far, far too many fossil fuels in the world” and “as much as half of oil reserves, proven reserves, need to stay in the ground”. These are words from a Prime Minister who is trying to convince us that he wants to restore the promise of Canada and restore the prosperity of Canada. How can Canadians be encouraged by these words or believe his sincerity about doing something?

Let us look at his record since he got here, which is also an indicator that his actions match his words. Everyone knows that the right thing to do when preparing to do something is to underpromise and over-deliver. Let us see if the Prime Minister has in fact done this. This is the most basic of lessons for anyone, whether it is in Dale Carnegie or for schoolchildren. It is to underpromise and over-deliver.

All major projects that have been announced to date were projects that were previously announced. No oil pipeline made that list of major projects. Without introducing a budget, the Prime Minister has doubled the deficit, which is expected to be the largest non-pandemic deficit in Canadian history, giving us the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7 after he promised the fastest growth; homebuilding dropping like a rock, when he promised to double homebuilding; and a record $54 billion in investment that has fled the country.

The Prime Minister won the election on his message of “elbows up”, saying that he was the person to handle Donald Trump's threats of tariffs and annexation. Today, the tariffs remain in place, with 50% on steel and aluminum and 25% on autos. Can I point out the obvious fact? There is no trade deal signed. For all of these reasons, we must question the Prime Minister's sincerity and his ability to deliver on what he said he would do.

The next thing we have to look at is the team that the Prime Minister has surrounded himself with. We look at the present Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who stated, “COP28 calls for groundbreaking goals to triple renewable energy [and] double energy efficiency, and, for the first time ever, we reached a historic consensus to move away from fossil fuels in energy systems.” He went on to say about pipelines:

The atmosphere and our climate certainly don't need them. Many of us believe we cannot build pipelines and meet our international climate commitments at the same time.

And with the world working around the clock to avoid the worst effects of climate change, it makes no sense from an ethical and a moral perspective to produce and ship more of a substance that is causing a problem, that disrupts the future of our children and our grandchildren.

This was from a minister close to the Prime Minister.

In addition, we have the words of the Alberta premier. She said, “I am very concerned the Prime Minister has appointed what appears to be yet another anti-oil and gas Environment Minister.... Not only is she a self-proclaimed architect of the designation of plastics as toxic, but she is a staunch advocate against oil sands expansion, proponent of phasing out oil and gas”. The premier also said she was put off by the minister's close ties to long-time thorn in her side, the Minister of Identity and Culture, to whom the current Minister of Environment served as parliamentary secretary for four years.

When we look at the motion that was presented here today, we see it is clear that the Prime Minister is not sincere. As a young woman in university, I was to meet my sister to show her around the university, but I did not meet her. Instead, I spent time with my friends, and when I got home, I got a lecture from my father. He told me that sincerity is doing what one says one is going to do.

It is time for the Prime Minister to keep the promise he made to Canadians in order to win the election and do what he said he was going to do, and that starts with eliminating the production cap.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal illusion is now on a collision course with reality. See, the Prime Minister ran an entire election campaign promising to be the opposite of who he was and to do the opposite of what he had been saying and writing and what the Liberal government had been doing for the prior 10 years. It was not just on the question of developing our resources; it was on questions of fiscal policy. He had obviously caused a massive inflation and housing crisis in the U.K. by printing nearly endless sums of money over there, and then he came back here promising that he would spend less, a promise he promptly broke.

The Prime Minister advised the then prime minister of this country, Justin Trudeau, to do likewise and then promised to do precisely the opposite. He argued not only that there should be a carbon tax, but that the tax should be raised even further, only to promise that he would get rid of it, a promise that he is already in the process of breaking. He campaigned around the world to defund the energy sector, convincing financial institutions to stop loaning and investing in Canadian energy, writing that he believed that “as much as half of oil reserves, proven reserves, need to stay in the ground if we're going to get to where we are.” He further said that it was a “sensible” decision to cancel the northern gateway pipeline, stating, “I think it's the right decision.”

Those were his positions up until about two months before he launched his campaign for prime minister, at which point he suddenly reversed them and tried to plagiarize the positions of the Conservative Party. The problem with someone pretending to believe something he clearly does not just to get elected is that after the election is over, he reverts quickly to his original course. This is what we have seen. While there have been many illusions that the Prime Minister would change course, that he would approve projects, that he would build at unimaginable speeds, none of this has materialized in any form of reality. Here we are six months into the latest Liberal term, and there is not a single new project that was not already in the works and had been given the green light, and certainly not one that is under construction. Today, we have an opportunity to find out what the Liberals' real position is on the subject of a pipeline, because, yes, this motion is about our ability to ever build a pipeline.

Let us break it down. We all agree that Canada has the most resources in the world. We all agree, at least Liberals and Conservatives agree, that the only reason we cannot build pipelines to move those resources to tidewater is federal bureaucracy and federal laws.

One might ask how the Liberals could agree with that proposition. The answer is that they passed Bill C-5, the foundation of which is that we need to go around all the Liberal laws and bureaucracies in order to get things built. The law literally allows the Prime Minister, through the stroke of the pen, to go around all of the environmental and public safety laws and associated bureaucracies, which means that he believes those laws and bureaucracies are neither necessary to protect the environment, nor possible if we want to get anything done.

Therefore, we agree that laws and bureaucracy are the obstacle. Here is where we disagree. The Prime Minister's view is that to solve the problem of Liberal laws and Liberal bureaucracies, we need more Liberal laws and Liberal bureaucracies, which is to say he confuses the problem with the solution. We believe that if there are Liberal laws and bureaucracies roadblocking development, then get rid of those Liberal laws and bureaucracies. Put simply, get out of the way. Let investors pour the hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment into building the projects of the future, projects that will pay tax rather than take government handouts. Get out of the way. Grant fast permits so that our workers, our prodigious welders, pipefitters, industrial carpenters and labourers, can get busy earning six-figure paycheques so they can build our country and make us independent from the Americans. In other words, get out of the way.

I will split my time with the member for Edmonton West.

Liberals would retort that they could still get a pipeline built without removing all of the destructive laws and rules that are in place because their new powers would allow them to go around those laws and rules, but here is the problem: Even if the Prime Minister were to use the powers in Bill C-5 to lay out a path to build a pipe from, say, Hardisty, Alberta, the biggest tank farm in Canada, all the way to the Pacific to either Kitimat or Prince Rupert, no one would build that pipeline today because the government bans the production of the oil going into it and the shipping of the oil coming out of it. It is another illusion. We see what the Prime Minister is setting us up for here. He wants to be able to say, “Geez, we would really love to build a pipeline, but there are no proponents. No one wants to build it. There is just not a market case for it. That's too bad.”

I guess we can just move on to another money-losing corporate welfare project that will make the Prime Minister's friends fabulously wealthy and make other people poor, because no one wants to build a pipeline. I guess pipelines are just out of fashion. Forget that they are being built far and wide outside of Canada, including by Canadian companies. In Canada, they are not being built. Why is that? It turns out that nobody wants to build a pipeline when the government bans companies from producing the oil to put into it and from shipping what comes out of it. They ultimately have to get rid of the production cap that is preventing the oil from going in, and the shipping ban that is preventing the oil from coming out. These are two things that the current government has so far refused to do.

To put this into context, the production cap that the government has imposed, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will cause over 54,000 job losses and blow a $20-billion hole in Canada's GDP. It will also make it impossible for us to get our oil to any market other than the United States of America, making us ever more dependent on the U.S., which is exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister promised. Here we have yet another Liberal bait and switch. The Prime Minister who ran on elbows up has been elbows down. Now he prevents us from shipping to overseas markets, making us even more reliant on the Americans. It is no wonder that President Trump said it would be a lot easier for him to deal with the Liberals. He was right. He knows that the Liberals want to continue to hand over our resources to the U.S. at enormous price discounts.

That is why Conservatives propose to get rid of the production cap. We are giving the Liberals an opportunity to vote here and now. If they vote to keep the production cap in place, it will be a signal that all of the flirtations the Prime Minister has done with the possibility of building pipelines were nothing but an illusion, a tragic and extremely costly illusion.

Let us put the illusions behind us and get to the real deal. Here is what it is: We need to pass a Canadian sovereignty act that would get rid of the production cap, repeal the anti-pipeline law Bill C-69, legalize shipping oil off the northwest British Columbia coast and axe the entire carbon tax, the industrial carbon tax, the fuel standard and all of the taxes that make our energy uncompetitive. We need to replace it with a law that would allow us to approve major projects in just six months and axe the capital gains tax for any business owner or person who reinvests their money in Canada. This would be rocket fuel for our economy. That is what we need. This is a plan for stronger take-home pay with a more powerful dollar that would buy food, fuel and homes at a more affordable price for our people.

The goal in all of this is to make our people richer, to give them bigger and bolder opportunities and to make this, once again, a country that is strong and self-reliant, and that stands on its own two feet. This is a patriotic act. We call on the government to adopt it. We will work with anyone from any party to get this done because, as always, we put Canada first.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

Once again, the Conservatives have brought forward a motion designed not to help Canadians but to divide them. Today's motion proposing an end to the oil and gas emissions cap, a regulation that has not even been finalized, is an example of this. I would like to be crystal clear as we begin debate on this motion: The government does not make policy decisions based on opposition motions. We are focused on results, not Conservative games.

Canadians elected the Liberals to make this country an energy superpower, one that leads the world in both clean and conventional energy, and one that grows our exports and reduces our emissions at the same time. That is exactly what we are doing. We are retooling Canada's economy by advancing nation-building projects, LNG terminals with indigenous partnership, carbon capture and storage, and transformative clean energy.

Just last week, we approved the Ksi Lisims LNG project in British Columbia, led by the Nisga'a Nation, which will be paired with a natural gas pipeline owned by first nations. It is the second-largest private investment in Canadian history, and it will export the cleanest LNG in the world. That is how we build an energy superpower. It is with low-cost, low-risk and low-carbon projects that get Canadian energy to market, cut emissions and create jobs from coast to coast to coast.

In Alberta, representatives from industry also agree that building a responsible, competitive oil and gas industry means advancing projects, such as Pathways. That is the core of the grand bargain, pairing transformative emissions reduction with new infrastructure that diversifies our exports. Let me remind my colleagues that we do not get these things done by negotiating in public.

Serious governments work with provinces, industry and indigenous partners. Conservatives want to blow up those discussions for their own partisan gain. It is worth asking the question, why are Conservatives so frustrated? I think the answer is that their own allies in Alberta have found common ground with the Prime Minister.

Premier Smith said, “I found more common ground with the prime minister when I met with him yesterday than I have in any meeting with a prime minister.” She encouraged Albertans to “not lose faith in the process”. I agree with the notion that we should work together on nation-building projects because we are all stronger when we work together. Premier Smith also said, “I am more optimistic than ever that the concerns of Albertans are FINALLY BEING HEARD.”

That is why the Conservatives are angry. Their whole playbook involves rage farming and division. When the Prime Minister is working productively with provinces such as Alberta, it leaves the Leader of the Opposition asking what his purpose is.

The truth is that Conservatives cannot stand the progress that is being made that they could not have made if they had won the last election. They have talked about Bill C-69, and they are now talking about the emissions cap, as being barriers to pipelines being built. I do not think there is an environmental regulation they do not think would kill the pipeline industry in Canada, but it is stronger than they think, and the Chicken Little routine is getting a little bit tiresome.

The Conservatives are desperate to derail sensitive discussions by negotiating in public, but Canadians know better. They know that co-operation is how we build projects of national interest, not through performative motions in the House. Let us be clear about what is missing in this Conservative motion. If the Conservatives want to repeal the emissions cap, then Canadians deserve to know what the plan is to reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector.

Building the strongest economy in the G7 means unlocking us as a conventional and renewable energy superpower with high environmental standards. Members opposite need to stop treating that as a conflict. In the last 10 years, we increased oil and gas production as a country by 34% compared to it being up globally by 6%. The population grew 15%, yet total GHG emissions declined 6.5%. Strong environmental protections and indigenous support are increasingly becoming table stakes for our trading partners.

Where are the Conservatives' ideas to ensure we remain competitive in a world that is demanding cleaner energy? Will they support Canada's enhanced methane regulations, which are some of the most economically efficient emissions reductions possible in the oil and gas sector? Will they support Canada's industrial carbon pricing system, which has already attracted more than $57 billion in investments and is a key reason our allies see us as a responsible supplier? Is their plan simply to do nothing, to walk away from progress, and to make Canada less competitive?

The silence from the other side is telling. The Conservatives rail against the Liberals' plan, but they have nothing to replace it with. They have no creditable path to reduce emissions, no plan to attract investment and no strategy to strengthen Canada's energy sector in a world where climate competitiveness matters more every day.

Let us also place this debate in its global context. The evolving geopolitical landscape is directly impacting Canada's economic and climate ambitions. We are in the midst of an unprompted trade war. Investors are weighing Canada against our peers and asking whether we will remain attractive compared to other markets.

The reality is that the world is moving fast. We need to meet the federal government's goal of attracting $500 billion of private capital into clean and conventional energy to build the projects that will secure our future. That is why the Prime Minister has made it clear that our government is working on a climate competitiveness strategy. It is about results, not rhetoric. We are strengthening our economy while reducing emissions, securing investment and ensuring Canada wins in the global race for energy competitiveness.

Rage farming just does not work anymore. Canadians want solutions.

The House leader on the other side talked about selling oil and gas at a discount. The last I checked, the WTI-WCS differential was $14, which is actually pretty low when we consider the quality differences and the fact that the spot price and transportation costs are involved. I am curious what the member thinks an appropriate differential would be. He talked about Canadian oil and gas being sold to the U.S. and then to Europe. The Conservatives act as though they have never heard of a swap market before. The fact is that this is a very integrated economy, just as the auto sector is.

Let me close with this: Our government is delivering real results. We are increasing exports of Canadian LNG off the west coast, approving transformative projects like Ksi Lisims LNG and advancing the Pathways project as part of a grand bargain that cuts emissions and grows jobs. By developing a climate competitiveness strategy that will allow us to attract $500 billion in investment, we will make Canada the strongest, most competitive economy in the G7.

We offer a plan to build Canada into an energy superpower while reducing emissions and fighting climate change. That is a test the Conservatives failed to meet during the last election and a test this motion fails to meet. It would do nothing to advance Canada's interests and fails to acknowledge the fact that Canada is in a trade war. For these reasons and more, I do not believe I will be supporting this motion, which seems unserious.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate today, which will set the record straight for Canadians about who we are and what we can be if we reach our full potential here in Canada.

Canada is a wealthy country, and it draws its wealth from its millions of citizens, from its hundreds of thousands of innovative businesses, and from its natural resources. The fact is we have been truly blessed here in this country. We have it all, all of the natural resources—whether it be critical minerals, minerals that we have been using for centuries, or what is rightly known as green energy, like hydroelectricity or biomass. We have everything in Canada to develop our potential and provide energy to meet all the needs of Canadians.

That is why I believe that, for as long as we need what we call fossil fuels, these fuels will have to come from Canada. Let us take advantage of this wealth we have to develop our full potential and, as my colleague so aptly stated just a few minutes ago, send Canada's natural resources to the rest of the world along with the Canadian workers whose labour creates that wealth. We need to allow these businesses and their full potential to be used how they were meant to be used.

Moreover, it is disappointing to hear the Prime Minister claim that, in certain circumstances, there is no viable business case for fossil fuels. That is completely false, as we will see later in my speech. Let us not forget that Canadians consume 51 million litres of oil and gas per day to meet their needs. Therefore, as long as Canadians need fossil fuels, I will support Canadian oil and gas and Canadian energy.

Two troubling examples have come to light that demonstrate how this government is stifling the potential of our natural resources.

First, I would like to quote a report by Olivier Lemieux out of Quebec City, which was broadcast by Radio-Canada on March 19. According to an expert from Texas, “Canada has made bad choices” for the oil industry. The author explains how it all works. Oil leaves Alberta, goes to Texas, and then comes back to Canada—not far from my riding, in fact, in Lévis—to be refined. However, rather than having our oil go through Texas and enriching Americans along the way, things could have been done differently.

According to Jean-Paul Rodrigue, professor at the department of maritime business administration at Texas A&M University, “Canada is stuck in a situation that puts it at a disadvantage”. “Canada has made bad choices for ideological reasons”, laments the Montreal native, who has lived in the United States for 30 years. He believes that environmental considerations are preventing Canada from exploiting its vast oil resources to their full potential.

As I said, Alberta's oil goes to Texas and then comes back to Lévis. Obviously, Texans are taking advantage of this to make whatever profit they can.

The other thing is utterly embarrassing. On August 26, a CBC anchor was interviewing the Polish ambassador and informed him that Poland was buying natural gas from the United States. The ambassador was so embarrassed by the question that all he could do was laugh. He admitted that Poland was buying natural gas from the United States, but claimed it was encouraging Canada at the same time. How so? Well, that natural gas bought in the U.S. comes from Canada. That means Canadians are sending their gas to the United States, and the United States is sending it to Europe. In the meantime, countless business opportunities are being squandered.

That is what prompted commentator Mario Dumont to say the following in the Journal de Montréal:

While [the Prime Minister of Canada] was visiting his country, Poland's ambassador in Ottawa revealed during a CBC interview that the natural gas his country buys is still Canadian natural gas.

...

In a nutshell, the gas we refuse to sell to Europe ultimately ends up there anyway, minus a juicy profit margin swallowed up by an American company. The bottom line is this: there is no benefit to the environment, a major economic loss to Canada and a tidy sum being pocketed by the United States.

I am sorry, but this is ridiculous!

That is the issue we are talking about today.

Are we going to keep pretending that everything is just fine? Are we going to keep saying that we, here in Canada, are nice people and will not rock the boat even if others do? Or instead, will we seize the opportunity to achieve our full potential in every energy sector that we, as Canadians, need?

The ambassador of Poland illustrated it very well, saying there is a business case. That is contrary to what the former prime minister said during his campaign, that, sorry, there was “no business case”. What a missed shot that was, because, yes, there is a business case. As very clearly identified by the ambassador of Poland in an interview on CBC, it is time for the government to open its eyes and act correctly for the good of all Canadians.

Let us not forget that those folks have been in government for 10 years. They have stepped up only once on an oil project. Let us not forget that Bill C‑69 slowed down any momentum, but they did do one thing: They decided to buy a pipeline. First they lecture the entire planet, then they buy a pipeline. Can anyone say that it did any good? Not really, we just have to look at what happened.

When someone decides to buy something that is not for sale, they have to pay more. The Canadian government paid $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, which had not even been built yet. It paid twice what it was worth. Not only did we get ripped off a bit on the price, but then it still had to be built.

When the Liberal government bought the pipeline the estimated cost was $7.4 billion. Any idea how much it actually cost? It did not cost two, three or four times more, but five times more. The cost went from $7.4 billion to $34.2 billion. Add to that the $4.5 billion and that is almost $40 billion. That is taxpayers' money that was used to buy a pipeline and build it, when that is absolutely not the government's mandate. In our view, the government is there to ensure that everything is done properly according to the rules and not to get in the business of pipeline ownership. Today, the government is trying to sell it and all the experts agree that if it sells, it will be worth half of what it cost. Congratulations.

Fortunately, Canadians can rest assured because the government created the position of minister responsible for government efficiency. The minister who holds that position is the one who came up with the bright idea to buy the pipeline. That is amazing. I know that minister well. He is my neighbour. It is the member for Louis‑Hébert, whom I respect and admire. I hope he will learn from what he did and never do it again.

I am proud to be a Quebecker and proud of the extraordinary legacy that has been handed on to us thanks to the vision that Quebec politicians had in the 20th century and still have today. They have been able to develop the full potential of electricity. However, there is also potential in fossil fuels, whether it be oil or gas. Quebec makes its own choices, but here is the reality for Quebeckers. According to an annual analysis by the École des hautes études commerciales, oil accounts for 36% of Quebec's energy, whereas natural gas accounts for 13%. Last year, Quebec consumed 9.7 billion litres of oil. Although I support electrification, the reality is that we still need oil in Quebec, and as long as we need oil, then I will support Canadian oil. Transportation is on the rise, and 9.7 billion litres is a record level of consumption in Quebec. Consumption is not dropping. It is increasing. Let us not forget that the F-150 has been the best-selling vehicle in Quebec since 2016.

The current provincial government has shown some openness on the issue of gas. On July 4, Quebec's premier stated that he would be open to the idea of building a plant. He is also open to the idea of building a liquefied natural gas terminal, if Quebeckers support the idea. Even yesterday, he said that he would take a page from the federal government regarding Bill C‑5 and table a bill that he is calling Bill Q‑5. We will see. I should point out that Bill C‑5 included Bill C‑375, a bill I tabled that sought to ensure that a single assessment be undertaken for each project. However, the Liberals rejected it.

I will now happily answer my colleagues' questions.

Prime Minister of Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister promised change. Like Liberals before him, he is breaking his promises. He promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He has actually delivered the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. He promised to “build, baby, build”, but he continues to support Bill C-69, the block, baby, block act. He promised to double the pace of construction, but homebuilding is actually declining. He promised jobs and opportunity and then delivered an unemployment crisis. He promised less spending, but he is spending more. He promised elbows up and then he put his elbows down.

The Prime Minister said the things he thought Canadians wanted to hear during the election, and then he did the opposite. During his time as a temporary foreign worker in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister was famously called the “unreliable boyfriend”. Six months into this relationship, Canadians are starting to see why. Canada, it turns out that “he is just not that into you”.

Natural Resources

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has been six months and the so-called new Liberal government seems like it is the same as the old one. At first, the Prime Minister sounded different from Justin Trudeau, but we are finding, as time goes by, that the Liberals are using the same old Liberal playbook. He hinted about a fast track to build a pipeline. What actually happened? He created a major project bureaucracy instead to try to fast-track big projects. Not a single pipeline is on the major projects list, as the Liberals have reannounced previous projects that are already under construction. They kept in place bad anti-energy policies from the Trudeau era: Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax, to name a few.

Enbridge, a Canadian energy company, is building a $700-million pipeline project. The problem is that it is not in Canada. It is in the United States of America.

Canadians will have to wait for a Conservative government to support our world-class energy sector that will cut bad Liberal policies, build a strong economy to get the job done and restore the promise of our great country.

Employment

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

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate having the opportunity this evening to speak about the metastasizing unemployment crisis that is facing this country. We have seen over the course of the summer that new reports demonstrate a continuously worsening situation, although I think it is important to say as well that this is the continuation of a three-year trend. It is not as if things were rosy and then all of a sudden unemployment got bad; this is the continuation of a running trend of worsening employment numbers. The unemployment rate overall is at 7.1%.

Things are getting worse for people of all ages. I want to be clear that it is not only young people who are facing this challenge, but it is particularly acute for them. The employment rate for young people in Canada is now at a more-than-25-year low. We have to go back to before the year 2000, which I think is three Liberal prime ministers ago, to find a situation where the youth employment rate was lower than it is now outside of the acute phase of the COVID pandemic. We are clearly in a situation where, for young people, we are already at recession levels of employment. This is a concern for many reasons. It is a concern because of the pain that young people are experiencing. The combination of housing being so difficult to access, out of reach for most, and a situation where employment is increasingly out of reach is leading to a lot of frustration and even despondency in the next generation.

Adding to that, youth unemployment, I think, is an indicator of broader problems in the economy. When companies are pessimistic about the future, their first step is not to let go of senior staff but to not give as many opportunities to those who are just entering the workforce. I think that is a reality, so the youth unemployment rate is a concern in its own right and also for what it indicates about the health of the economy.

We see also how the cost of living crisis is contributing to the unemployment situation. The latest report from Statistics Canada outlines how more people are working multiple jobs because they need the extra money to get by. More people are asking for additional hours from their employer, again because they need the income to pay for basic expenses. The fact that people are struggling because of the cost of living crisis is contributing to more pressure on the labour market, so we have these interconnected, compounding problems. This really is the outworking of a number of different policy failures.

For 10 years we have had a Liberal government that has not been able to support the moving forward of major infrastructure projects that our economy needs. It has put in place Bill C-48, Bill C-69, a production cap and an industrial carbon tax; these policies are blocking development that would help young people get to work. We have seen increasing red tape and other barriers put in front of small businesses that make it harder for them to do business in Canada and to create jobs for young people. We have seen immigration failures, and that is why Conservatives have proposed essential reforms, so that young people can get back to work. We see policy failures contributing to the cost of living crisis, as well as poor alignment with respect to training policy. Many different policy failures have led to the situation.

We need to see a plan from the government, a plan that involves reversing some of these failures. Where is the plan?

Strong Borders Act

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start out with a very simple principle that I think all of us would agree with. Certainly, science would agree with it: The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Extending grace to those on the other side, I think we all want to get to a point where we have safe, secure borders, borders where we do not have fentanyl flowing, where we do not have the flowing of illegal guns and where we do not have illegal products crossing our borders. I think we would all agree on that.

My question is, why has the government decided to obstruct its own legislation by putting through a number of things that are spurious and really do not have anything to do with the core mission I talked about? We all want to get to the same point. We want to get to a destination where Canada has safe, secure borders.

We know that the men and women at the CBSA work hard every day. However, we also know that, over the last 10 years in this chamber, the Liberals have not given them the tools they need for maximum success. Instead of talking about various issues, why do we not have a laser-focused piece of legislation that focuses on some of the core mandate issues, things we can all agree upon, and pass the legislation? I will talk about why these things are concerns to us.

I will give an example of how we could do this. Bill C-5 is deeply flawed. It is meant to be a band-aid solution for the past 10 years of terrible legislation, such as the cap on oil and gas and Bill C-69. I could go on. It is a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card for certain projects. We saw that at least it would get some projects done. My team and I worked personally and closely with the minister's team to work with that legislation to make it better. Conservatives passed over 20 different constructive amendments to improve that legislation and ended up voting for it. I do not understand why the Liberals did not adopt the same model for Bill C-2. Instead they decided to digress on a number of strange paths.

I will talk first of all about the ability for the government to obtain documents and important, critical information, such as medical information, from ISP providers, from banks and from other institutions without a warrant. That is dangerous. That is not the type of power the government needs. I agree that the member made an excellent point. As a parent of a 10-year-old and an 11-year-old, I want to make sure, to the fullest extent possible, that my children and all Canadian children are protected from the predators who are out there. I am open to discussions on that, but why not have a narrow piece of legislation that is focused on that? Why not use age verification, as in Bill S-209, which would protect children from some of these predators who are online?

The scope of data that would be available to the government is incredible. I do not think the member for Winnipeg North would have gone on a dating app recently, so this is probably not a concern to him. However, millions of Canadians have. I think they would be shocked to know that a border security bill would give the government the ability to access their Tinder profile.

What a digression that was. Once again, I will get back to my original point. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Why would we not have legislation to put that in place?

Then there are restrictions on cash. As I said, there are definitely areas where cash is misused in our economy. It can be used for crimes, such as extortion, blackmail and drug dealing. If someone can name it, it is used for that on the black market. As legislators, we have to be cognizant of this. We want to protect Canadians from being victims of crime.

Canada is known as a haven for money launderers. There is actually a term for it: snow washing. We need to fight money laundering. My colleague, the member for Simcoe North, put forward a great private member's bill that sought to fight money laundering. However, the government refused to support it and eventually it died on the Order Paper, which is unfortunate.

This is always about a conflict of rights. There are very few cases where one person is right and one person is wrong, so when we are dealing with different rights, we need to act like a surgeon. We cannot just go in with a cannon and blow things up. Why not be surgical about our approach? Instead of putting in these massive restrictions, these dragnets around past transactions, let us be surgical. Let us look at the details. Let us make sure that we are not, for example, as a member stated earlier, accidentally bringing in gurdwaras, temples, mosques, churches and synagogues, where often cash is part of transactions. There are many cultural and social activities that still rely on cash, and to have cash included is not the right idea.

At the end of the day, we can see the ideological divide. Conservatives fundamentally believe in the Canadian public. We believe in Canadians. We want to give them every opportunity to do the right thing. It is not to say that there cannot be some restrictions and there should not be restrictions, but on that side of the aisle, the new government and the old government are the same on this principle. The Liberals believe that more government is better government, that the more intrusion in our lives, the better. They believe that government can do no wrong.

We have seen, over the last decade, that the government can do lots of things wrong. We saw it invoke the Emergencies Act and debank Canadians, and it used such broad powers. I have put on the record before that the use of those provisions was fairly narrow, and very few people were debanked. I want to make that clear because that is the truth and I am here to speak the truth. However, the problem was that the proclamation the Liberals used, the emergency measures proclamation, was broad. These are not my words, but one of the expert witnesses we had before the finance committee said they were so broad that the government could have debanked someone who simply sold a pack of gum to someone who participated in the protest movement. That is not from me. Members can check the finance committee records from a couple of years back.

I am not saying that all government is bad and that government workers are bad. I am saying the opposite, as 99% are great people who do great work 99% of the time. The challenge is that we need oversight over everyone, because humans are innately flawed and will not always do the right thing. That is why we have judicial oversight. It is why we should have carefully crafted legislation that uses a laser target to get at the people we want to get at.

Instead of making a straight line, the government has decided to wander all over various places, from restricting cash transactions to getting warrantless access to the records held by ISPs and banks. This is opening up Canadians to abuse at the hands of perhaps an incompetent or worse government official. We want to make sure there is oversight of the government, such as with a search that requires a warrant.

In conclusion, while the Conservatives will always be the party of law and order and we will always stand for a strong border, we are very confused by this legislation.

Regional Economic Development

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government promised nation-building projects, including building the green energy corridor. It has all the tools required, yet nothing has been built in the past six months, and the only projects announced are the ones already under way.

The people of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador want to see action from the Liberal government. An energy corridor would connect Labrador to the rest of the country without other provinces taking the icing and the cake and leaving my province with the crumbs. The government will not repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the production caps or the industrial carbon tax. It will not even commit to its own promise of building an energy corridor from sea to sea.

It is time for the Liberal government to get out of its own way, stop breaking its promises and use the tools it has, because it is time to get to work.

Economic Development

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians still pay the price for the lost, anti-development Liberal decade. Six months ago, to get elected, the Prime Minister promised to put shovels in the ground on big projects at unimaginable speeds, but what Canadians got was the same old Liberal bait and switch, photo ops and more bureaucracy, because the PM is just another Liberal.

The Liberals say five projects have made their secret list so far, some already approved and some already being built, but there is not a single pipeline to create Canadian jobs with Canadian steel and pay for programs that all Canadians want.

Conservatives worked to improve and pass Bill C-5, but it is not enough to get back the $60 billion that left Canada due to Liberal red tape. Bill C-5 admits that the Liberals' own laws blocked building. They must scrap the “no new pipelines, never build anything anywhere” Bill C-69; the shipping ban, Bill C-48; Canadian energy censorship; the Liberal oil and gas cap; and the federal industrial carbon tax so Canada can compete.

Conservatives want to unleash natural resources to make a strong, united Canada self-reliant, affordable—

One Canadian Economy Act

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to represent the wonderful people of Long Range Mountains.

I have sat in the House and listened carefully to many of the debates on Bill C-5.

Let me begin by stating clearly that, of course, Conservatives support natural resource development. We always have. For nearly a decade, Conservatives have been pressing the Liberal government to repeal the legislation that has been blocking responsible development in regions right across the country.

We know that Canadians are living through deep economic uncertainty, and they are looking for a serious plan that would give that certainty, but they also want to create competitiveness in the private sector and have a plan that creates jobs, attracts investment and delivers hope for the future. The building Canada act is the government's answer to this moment.

As Conservatives, we agree with building Canada and creating growth in our economy. In fact, I campaigned on it. After close to 50 years, a traditionally Liberal riding flipped. That was because the people of Long Range Mountains recognized that, while we have a province rich in natural resources, we also have some of the worst economic outcomes in the country. They believed that a Conservative government would unlock the opportunities in their communities.

We are thankful that the Liberals have finally recognized that this is extremely important to Canada and Canadians, but unfortunately, this plan would give way too much power to politicians to pick and choose projects. Thankfully, our amendments have decreased some opportunity for Liberal corruption, but despite having the most resources per capita of any country, our economy has had the worst economic growth in the G7, and we have become more dependent on the United States because of Liberal laws that have blocked resource development.

Canada's unemployment rate in May was at its highest level in over eight years, excluding the pandemic. Youth unemployment has skyrocketed, and Canadians cannot afford groceries. Quite simply, we are not meeting our potential, and the legislation before us is supposed to be a part of charting a course for Canada's economy and our economic future. Unfortunately, this legislation does not give the confidence to workers, businesses or investors that we need in this situation.

What is deeply concerning is the method by which the projects of natural interest get to be selected or, thereafter, taken off the list. The legislation would give sweeping power to cabinet to pick winners and losers behind closed doors. Once a project is declared a national interest project and added to schedule 1, all required federal authorizations are automatically rubber-stamped, but the Liberals can thereafter remove them from the list. This is not reforming the current system. It is a power grab, and it is political favouritism.

In addition, the creation of the bill by the Liberals is effectively admitting what Canadians already know, which is that their own laws have paralyzed our ability to build and grow. Rather than fix the broken system and get rid of the laws that prevent us from developing our natural resources, like repealing Bill C-69, the energy cap and the industrial carbon tax, they are creating an exclusive shortcut for a select few based on political convenience. The bill trades fairness and long-term certainty for more centralization and more Liberal control. Canadians deserve better.

Conservatives want to protect Canadians from government corruption while also developing our natural resources and unlocking our immense potential, which means stopping Liberal ministers from circumventing conflict-of-interest laws. Thankfully, Conservatives have added amendments that would remove this ability. However, we should allow the private sector to drive innovation and growth, but the Liberal government insists on picking winners and losers. I ask why this is. Instead, and I say this once again, it could simply repeal the bad policies that block projects. What about all of the major resource and infrastructure projects, which are already stuck in the federal system, that may not be deemed national interest projects? These are all with the growth of the Canadian economy, jobs and investment on the line. Where is the fast track for them?

In Newfoundland and Labrador, there are projects caught on the other side of federal red tape and regulatory paralysis. These projects will grow local economies and provide growth and financial prosperity for rural communities in my riding. Where is the fast track for them?

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have wanted to see our natural gas sector developed for years. Recently, the province released its assessments on natural gas resources, highlighting that it could drive economic growth. However, we know the Liberals have driven away proponents looking to develop this resource, not because it was not viable but because the federal process dragged on so long that they simply just walked away.

On this point, everyone will remember the Liberals' 2022 announcement with the German chancellor, when Canada was asked directly to help Europe reduce its reliance on Russian gas. The chancellor actually visited my riding, and he made it clear that Europe would really like Canada to export more LNG. Our allies were looking to us for a reliable, democratic energy supply. Newfoundland and Labrador could have been a part of this opportunity, but instead of answering that call, the Liberals claimed there was no business case for Canadian LNG.

Under the legislation as it stands right now, all of the same Liberal ministers will get to choose which projects get hand-picked and fast-tracked. Furthermore, in that moment, with a great opportunity for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the government pivoted to hydrogen. Now, several of these projects are trying to launch wind hydrogen operations in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberals picked projects with promises of wind-powered hydrogen exports, new infrastructure and thousands of jobs. However, like so many other Liberal announcements, what was promised with cameras rolling is now wrapped in all kinds of uncertainty.

Recently, it was revealed that Newfoundland and Labrador is owed millions of dollars in unpaid fees from green energy companies, a development that raises serious questions about the financial viability of these projects and whether the multi-billion dollar investments touted by the government will ever materialize. Some owe a collective $13.7 million in fees due in 2024 for the use of Crown land.

Politicians got carried away with announcements and hand-picked projects, but the real tragedy is that Newfoundland and Labrador missed out on an opportunity to provide Canadian LNG because someone in Ottawa thought that they knew best. This is a perfect example of why top-down decision-making does not work. It is not just about energy policy; it is about trust and credibility.

There are lots of projects that the Liberal government has failed to get built. When the Liberals say they are creating a new fast-track process under Bill C-5 for a select few national interest projects, why are the ones we already have across this country stuck in limbo? Why do Liberal cabinet ministers get to decide what is on the list and what is not? Jobs are being lost to delays, while cabinet gives itself the power to pick favourites. Since the government has admitted that its own legislation has created this problem, and it is now trying to bypass it with shortcuts, does it not just make more sense to repeal the legislation?

If this is truly a new government, as the Prime Minister and all his front bench have claimed, then they should prove it to Canadians by repealing Bill C-69, removing the industrial carbon tax and scrapping the emissions cap. These measures would restore certainty and ramp up our economy, including our rural communities, so we can become a self-reliant, sovereign and independent country.

In the meantime, as Conservatives, we intend to hold the government to account on this legislation to be sure Canadians are protected against Liberal corruption.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we are happy when any project finally gets built in this country, after 10 years of the Liberal government trying to stop everything, but this is an example of the Liberal government causing problems and creating a new program to try to fix them.

Why would the member not just tell his caucus to please just scrap Bill C-69 and Bill C-48?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, are we going to have free trade in Canada and the $200-billion opportunity by Canada Day? No, we are not. There is a framework, but there is a lot to do. We just heard the minister's speech, and a number of things are still going to happen in July, with a meeting of the minds and convening, which is something the Liberal government is very good at, but we are not seeing action.

If we want to talk about a team Canada approach, I would remind the member for Winnipeg North that the premier of my province, Premier Ford, has been one of the premiers who have called for the scrapping of Bill C-69, as I have indicated, which is one of the impediments to building things. It is going to stop them from building projects in Ontario as well.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are now at third reading of Bill C-5, our final opportunity in the House to speak to the legislation before it moves to the Senate.

Let me start here: Canadians are not short on talent, we are not short on ambition, and we are certainly not short on natural resources. What we are short on is a government that knows how to unleash that potential and get things built. I hear all the time that people are ready to work, businesses want to expand and communities are waiting for critical infrastructure, but over and over again we run into the same thing: bureaucratic bottlenecks, over-regulation, and a government more interested in announcing headline-grabbing projects than permitting economically important ones.

The bill is about getting big things built, and that should matter a whole lot. Faced with the economic challenges of their own creation, the Liberals have said numerous times recently that this is the moment. What would have met the moment is scrapping Bill C-69, scrapping the shipping ban, and scrapping the oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax.

At committee, Conservatives rolled up our sleeves and got to work. We saw that the bill would create a series of loopholes that would have allowed ministers and the prime minister to bypass Canada's ethics laws, the Conflict of Interest Act, lobbying rules, the protections under the Criminal Code, and the Auditor General Act, among others. Under the original draft of the bill, a minister could have approved a project that would benefit their own investments, and no one would have been the wiser.

We also saw that the bill as originally drafted would have given the government too much power, so we fought back, and we won. With the support of opposition colleagues, Conservative MPs passed amendments to close loopholes, ensure stricter controls and bring about transparency and accountability.

We made sure that public office holders would have to recuse themselves in the event of a conflict. We established a mandatory national security review for foreign state-owned proponents. We added a public registry of projects, clear rationales and a timeline to publish criteria within 15 days of royal assent. We created a mechanism for parliamentary oversight, requiring regular reporting. We mandated public consultation reporting. We forbade the government from exercising extraordinary powers when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued.

Conservatives made the bill better. We delivered transparency, oversight and guardrails. I want to thank my colleagues on the transport committee for their hard work.

However, let me be clear: While we made it better, we cannot pretend that the bill is the be-all and end-all of meeting the moment. Let us look at part 1 of the bill, which is about free trade and labour mobility within Canada. It sounds ambitious, but in reality, it is far more limited. There are no binding timelines, no penalties for delays, no incentives for provinces to actually remove trade barriers and no framework for a blue seal licensing standard that would allow professionals such as engineers, nurses and skilled tradespeople to work across the country based on national credentials.

At committee, we heard from Catherine Swift, president of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada, who summed it up well: Canada has been talking about internal trade for three decades, report after report, announcement after announcement, but it is still not nearly enough meaningful action. The fear is that the bill would only add to that pile and it would become just another press release without a solid plan to move forward.

That is why Conservatives have been proposing a better way to provide financial incentives for provinces that eliminate barriers, which would be a win-win; it would boost GDP, increase revenues and allow provinces to reinvest in important infrastructure projects. The IMF has estimated that removing internal trade barriers could raise Canada's GDP by as much as 4%. That is real growth, real paycheques and real opportunity, but very little of that is in Bill C-5. Again, the bill does not do enough to seriously address the economic headwinds that Canada is facing.

Now I will go on to part 2 of the bill, the building Canada act. This section is supposed to fast-track major projects that are in the national interest, but instead of real reform, we get a selective shortcut. We get all the red tape, bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 remain in place, and there are no clear criteria for what makes a project eligible. There is no certainty for investors, just more discretion handed to the ministers who have failed to deliver time and time again.

Yes, Conservatives improved the bill at committee, but flaws remain. We heard from Dr. Exner-Pirot, director of natural resources, energy and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, at committee. She warned us very bluntly that global capital is mobile. Investors are not going to wait around for a country that takes years to approve a pipeline or transmission line. In fact, they are not waiting; they are going to the United States, they are going to Australia and they are going to Norway, to countries with the same environmental standards but faster, clearer and more reliable approval processes.

We cannot ignore the warning signs. Canada has dropped in global rankings for competitiveness. A lack of clarity, slow timelines and politicized approvals are driving investment away. Conservatives believe in a better path: one-and-done approvals, a national energy corridor and shovel-ready zones. We all want to see worthy projects proceed, not just the ones that are politically favourable that particular week or month.

We are in an era of fierce global competition, urgent infrastructure needs and historic opportunity. While the legislation sets a framework, there is more to be done. There needs to be a clear model for approvals, and impediments to approval need to be cleared, such as, again, Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the production cap, and the industrial carbon tax.

It is important that we step back for a moment and look at the bigger picture. Canada, in the past decade, has ranked dead last in the G7 for economic growth, and 80% to 90% of our energy exports still go to the United States at a discount. Our farmers, miners and manufacturers are boxed in by regulations that serve no one. As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce told us, internal trade barriers act like a self-imposed 21% tariff, and yet we wonder why productivity is stagnant, investment is down and young Canadians cannot find opportunities at home.

Meanwhile, Trump's tariffs are escalating. Our competitors are attracting investment while we are repelling it. The government's answer cannot be another layer of process and platitudes, more bureaucracy and empty promises while opportunity slips away. We are in a moment that calls for ambition, that calls for reform and that calls for leadership. Instead, the government gives us something that sounds good but fails when it meets the reality of the Canadian economy, and Bill C-5, despite the title, despite the spin, still does not do enough to change that.

With the final vote in the House expected shortly, Bill C-5 is poised to become law by Canada Day. Conservatives made it more transparent, more accountable and more secure. We stood up for taxpayers, we shut the back door to insider influence and we forced the government to answer for its overreach. Conservatives made Bill C-5 better, but many challenges remain. Canada is falling behind because we make it too hard to build, too hard to work across provinces and too hard to trade within our own borders. Canada has everything the world wants and needs; we need to address what is holding us back.

Bill C-5 takes a small step forward. Is it enough? No. Is it the right direction for a change? Yes, and that is why we will not hold up this modicum of progress. We are the party of building, and so we will not stop fighting for real change. We will hold the government to account for what gets done for the results. We will keep fighting for what really matters: paycheques, productivity, and a future that unleashes Canada's great potential for everyone.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for working so well together with Conservatives at committee to put in safeguards on accountability and transparency.

Projects like building a pool in one's backyard will not happen, but I would like nothing more than to work with the Bloc or any other members to fundamentally change, instead of having an end-around on the morass of regulation and burdensome taxes, to actually put in place the foundation, the environment. That way, all projects can get built as opposed to having an end-around. Unfortunately, we have not had the support of the Bloc or any other of the radical left parties in the House to eliminate things like Bill C-69, the oil and gas cap and the industrial carbon tax.