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.

Consideration of Government Business No. 1

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is a case study on how not to build a nation, how to destroy a country from within. To understand how bad this bill and the government are, we need to understand how we got here if we are ever going to get through this as a country.

Since day one, the Liberal Party of Canada has been trying to reshape Canada into this weird reality. Many Canadians do not recognize this country, a postnational state that does not have an identity. Over the past decade, Canada has had the worst record on economic growth in the G7. For every category, Canada is dead last because of Liberal policies that have weakened our country and made our citizens poorer.

There are countless stats to confirm how far we have fallen. Just look at the over two million people in our country relying on food banks every day just to sustain themselves. This has been caused by Liberal inflation because of terrible policies like printing money, but maybe more importantly, it has also been caused by the laws the Liberals have enacted to ban growth within Canada, such as Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and the tanker ban. This has real-world implications; there is real Canadian suffering. I am also thinking of youth, who are facing record unemployment right now. Whole generations have given up on the dream of ever owning a home. The Liberals want a nation of renters. We are a country in decline because of the terrible policies of the government. It is almost as if in every way possible, the Liberals have made us more dependent on the state.

We do not talk enough about natural resources in Canada. We should be a stronger nation because of our foundation built on natural resources, but that will never happen while the Liberals are in power. The “keep it in the ground” gang has kidnapped our once proud country. We used to build in Canada. We used to celebrate new production in Canada, not cap it. Our citizens are hard working. We are a country, or used to be a country, of doers. After a decade of decline, the terrible Liberal antidevelopment laws have killed communities across our country.

As a country, we have spoken endlessly about the north and the importance of protecting and growing our presence in the territories, but because of new Liberal regulations, the north is hurting. This bill would not address that. I have travelled to the north. I have heard first-hand how Bill C-69 has stalled and ultimately killed every new mining project in the territories.

I have been told that in the territories there are two main types of jobs: people can work for the government on the taxpayers' dime or they can work in the mining sector. The government has stalled and changed regulations so that no mines are currently being built in the territories. Soon, there will only be government jobs, and all those mining jobs will be evaporated. Everyone is just going to get on the payroll of the government. That is the strong country the Liberals are building, a country that happily fires its own citizens and ships production and jobs to foreign countries. The Liberals have made our economy more beholden to foreign interests and have made a weaker Canada.

Because of Liberal anti-pipeline policies, we do not have ways to move our product to market. This results in America buying our oil at a discount. The citizens of this country own the resources in the ground, all the resources. No one special group has more say over them. We are the owners, not the corporations and not the government; the citizens are, for our benefit.

However, this once great country, which owns these resources, has a government that wants to keep them in the ground as long as it can. The manager of the resources, the government, has done a lousy job in managing our assets and our inheritance for the next generation. These brilliant Liberals have layered on so much regulation that pipeline companies such as Brookfield invest in pipelines around the world but not here in Canada. It is elbows up against our own people and resources.

We have closed all growth opportunities to export the product that we all own, making it easier for Americans to literally have us over a barrel. We have forced ourselves to sell to the Americans for a discount on every barrel of oil. It is upwards of $15 on every barrel that we just give away because of the crazy policies the Liberals have enacted for our country.

If we add that up with the millions and billions of barrels of oil, there is the money to reinvest in schools, hospitals, highways and true infrastructure. We would have the revenue because our economy is growing. We would have the ability to get our product to market, but not under the Liberals.

The Liberals have a record of selling out our country for what they claim is the environment. We might just stop that for a minute. The whole idea is that we have to keep it all in the ground and stop everything to save the planet, but just on the oil and gas equation, if the whole world would use oil from Canada, our emissions as a planet would go down by 25%. I am not sure whether they are hurting our country more or the environment more with their crazy Liberal policies.

It gets even worse when we talk about LNG. There is not a country in the world that would not want what we have, but we have squandered this opportunity. This is the worst missed opportunity in a generation. I am so embarrassed for our country about what has happened.

When the Liberal government formed government 10 years ago, there were 15 LNG plants lined up for Canada. There was not a single taxpayer dime in these projects; it was all private investment that would have driven our economy for a decade. These projects were billion-dollar projects located in coastal communities desperate for well-paying jobs that would allow families to buy a home, raise some kids and retire in a safe community. Those paycheques would have come from liquefied natural gas plants.

Unfortunately, the Liberals changed the policies, and only one is progressing. We still do not have it up and operational. If we remember the resource that is in the ground, the natural gas, it is owned by all of us. With what we are doing right now, if we are going to sell an ounce of natural gas outside Canada, it goes to our only customer, the United States of America.

America is our sole customer for natural gas. It takes our gas, transports it in the capacity that we do have in pipelines to the States, and it goes to liquefied natural gas plants, some of which are for the same companies that were proposing those plants in Canada. After the Liberals said no, they went to the States.

We send our gas to the States, and the Americans get the profit from liquefying it and selling it around the world. The profit and the jobs go to the Americans because of Liberal policies. This is the country the Liberals have built. All those jobs and opportunities have been lost to America because of Liberal regulation.

After a decade of crazy Liberal policies that have weakened the country, these crackerjacks are proposing to fast-track a limited number of nation-building projects. It is like Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

I hope families are not waiting. If someone is in one of the many families that have their careers tied up in a project that is waiting for approval from the government, this is the Willy Wonka magic golden ticket they are claiming. If they are waiting for that, I hope their project will go ahead. This is the kind of sweepstakes the Liberal government thinks is the best way to build a nation.

We have a country desperate for growth and all the good things that flow from economic activity. The Liberals only want a handful of those opportunities. This is limiting Canada's growth. The Liberals have weakened our country at the worst possible time. The government has had 10 years to improve interprovincial trade, but it has not.

The Liberals have benefited from a divided federation, so no one believes it when the Prime Minister says that the barriers will be coming down by Canada Day. Frustrations with Liberals have never been higher in Saskatchewan, and for good reason. Many families I know work in the uranium sector and do not trust Bill C-5 or what the government is up to.

Nuclear energy and uranium mining has been stalled in our country because of layering of multiple regulations. If we want to build a nation, I have a project for us. It is ready to go. It is the NexGen Rook 1 project. There are 1,300 high-paying jobs in northern Saskatchewan ready to go. It would result in over $10 billion in government revenue.

This is the project. This is one of thousands of projects across Canada that could actually build a nation. I plead with the Liberals to please put Canada first for a change and get this project done. This is just one of the uranium mining projects that are on the go in Canada and northern Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Saskatoon—University.

This is my first speech in the House, and I would like to thank all the supporters from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

This takes me back to how I got started in politics in the first place. It is ironic, because as a first nations member in Kitimat, where I come from, I got my start on the environment file, meaning that we were trying to repair the damage done to our territory over the last 70 years: damage to the river, damage to the forest and damage to the air. That took up the bulk of our time. At that time, I had to research what an environmental assessment was, what a permit was and what aboriginal rights and title were. This took me years, as a labourer, at a time when the Internet was not readily available to us. We had one computer in our condemned band office, which used to be a residential school. It was hard. It took years to understand this, and nobody in my organization could really explain to me the full extent of what an environmental assessment was. Now, I am back. Over the years, I used to think about all this information in my head being useless, because I thought nobody cared and I could not use it anymore, and then I end up here, talking about the same things I was talking about in 2003, but this time it is flipped.

Canadians should understand that Bill C-5 is in two parts. One is about breaking down provincial boundaries, and I will not be talking about that. I will be talking about the second part, the exemption from environmental assessments in Canada.

The environmental assessments are responsible for LNG Canada, the largest private investment in Canadian history, being built in Kitimat to the highest standards, with transparency and accountability. Everybody understood what was going to happen, because there were federal and provincial authorities involved. More importantly, what strengthened that process was aboriginal rights and title. All first nations from Prince George to Kitimat were part of that process. We all got it; we understood it. There was an emergency of sorts back then, a crisis. Aboriginals were in poverty, and the violence of poverty goes along with that.

Now we have a new crisis, but nobody on the government side is talking about some of the conditions that led to this crisis in the first place. Bill C-69, that extensive bill with all those words in it, actually shut down the building of pipelines. There was also Bill C-48, the ban on tankers coming off the west coast of British Columbia.

The weakened state we are in, and the reason Bill C-5 is on the floor in the first place, is because of tariffs. However, I will go further and say that Canada has lost its place in the geo-energy world, the geopolitical world and the geo-economics world, and it was all self-inflicted. I mean, forget about the tariffs for a second and just think. Without a strong economy, we have a weak country. That is just basic, simple math. It is just common sense, and first nations understand this.

We are now talking about Bill C-5, which would basically exempt major projects from environmental assessments at the federal level, but it would not reduce or eliminate them at the provincial level. It is yet to be seen how much time would be reduced. There is no word on how the federal government will actually replace the consultation and accommodation of aboriginal rights and title, which are protected by section 35 of the Constitution. These processes have been in place, in formation over decades, but now, in one day, we are going to wipe that all out. We are going to say, “No, we don't need an environmental assessment.”

I agree that environmental assessments take a lot of money. They take a lot of time, and they are risky. We could do all the work we want and still not receive an environmental assessment certificate, not to mention what will happen if we have a harmonized environmental assessment with the provinces. There are so many different ways to say yes and no.

Now we are getting that from B.C., which will say no to pipelines, so what we are talking about here is almost a waste of time. If we do by some miracle get to a point where we get a pipeline approval, we are going to end up in court, because there are a tremendous number of gaps proposed by this bill. They were in place when I started in council in 2003, back when we were trying to figure out not only how we make our way in a new world as first nations, but how to strengthen the environmental standards in B.C. and Canada and get B.C. and Canada to live up to the conditions in a permit. That took a lot of work. When first nations say that they strengthened the permitting regulations and environmental assessments and used rights and title to do it, it cost first nations a lot of time, money and political capital, because we were trying to balance economics with the environment and the welfare of our people over the next 50, 100 or 150 years. It was difficult.

In Kitimat Village, we reached a happy medium where everybody benefited, not just first nations. Even our neighbouring first nations benefited, but on the basis of the processes in the province of British Columbia and Canada. We figured it out.

Yes, environmental assessments cost money, an incredible amount of money. For a major project, I recommend to proponents that they better have $50 million of disposable money just to get their certificate, with no guarantee they would get their certificate. Bill C-5 is now saying the government will forego an environmental assessment and give an exemption if it is politically acceptable to it. That would cut down on time and money, but how many groups will be lobbying the government to get on that exemption list? How will the government ensure that the lobbying is done openly, transparently and fairly?

We just went through a debate about contracts issued to a company to the tune of $60 million-plus where processes were in place to ensure there was no fraud or corruption with respect to the contracts being issued. We still have not gotten that resolved. What are we going to do when a $30-billion project comes down the pipe, or a $40-billion project? None of this makes any sense to me, except that there will be no environmental assessment for a major project unless, the way I see it, we find ways to cut corners. Where are we going to cut corners? We are already going to do it with the environmental assessment, but surely we are not going to cut corners with aboriginals on aboriginal rights and title, consultation and accommodation.

There are a lot of first nations that understand this process, but what is number one to the first nations in my area is to address the environment first. That is what we do, and we use our rights and title to do it. We understand there are jobs, money, training and everything associated with a project, but we have to address the environment first. The best way to do that is to engage in an environmental assessment. Usually, aboriginal rights and title run parallel to environmental assessments, both provincially and federally, but if there is no environmental assessment, then what is the process? How will aboriginals ensure that projects are done to the highest standards? We have always bragged that Canada has the highest environmental standards in the world. How do we ensure this with Bill C-5 going forward?

There are many questions here, but the Liberal government just proposed closure, meaning we will not get to debate this bill in full. It was tabled last week. I have never come across a bill this extensive and we only have a week to debate it. Not everybody is going to get up and get a chance to talk on behalf of their riding. Canada has to hold the government accountable. It has to know what is happening with Bill C-5 and the future for the next five, 10 or 20 years, because exemptions are going to be a big issue.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is just like the Liberals. Typically, they will say one thing during an election and do something completely different once they have been elected. They refuse to repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the shipping ban. Also, the minister is talking about all the jobs this bill would create, but at the same time, they refuse to repeal Bill C-50 on the just transition, which will cost 200,000 jobs in energy, 290,000 jobs in agriculture and 1.4 million jobs in construction.

Why will the government not send a clear signal to investors and working Canadians by repealing Bill C-50, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 and truly show Canadians that Canada is open for business?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the government wants to build special projects, specifically the pipelines that Alberta has been asking for for a long time, but the same government has put up barriers so that these projects cannot go through, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which are still in place.

I am not sure how the Liberals can explain to Canadians how they are going to build projects while the barriers they have put in place are going to prevent those projects from happening.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is now moving closure on its piece of legislation in order to, as it claims, fast-track projects for our nation. However, without getting rid of Bill C-69, without getting rid of Bill C-48, without getting rid of the industrial carbon tax and without getting rid of the production cap, what is the point in fast-tracking legislation to have a one-stop shop where people can just hear the word “no”?

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberals have been in power for the last decade. They did make a half-hearted attempt with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 2017, but they have not been serious. If they had been serious, they would have, in the decade they had to fix this, brought all the premiers around the table and demonstrated the economic importance of tearing down all interprovincial trade barriers and making sure that Canada was strong.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have been focused on legislation like Bill C-69, the gas cap and other legislation that is meant to weaken the Canadian economy and has left us in a difficult situation, having the lowest GDP per capita since the Great Depression.

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

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to give a speech in the House of Commons, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to spend 30 seconds of my speech thanking my volunteers, my family, and my wonderful community for sending me back here for the third time to represent the great people of Northumberland—Clarke. I thank them all. Their contributions were immeasurable and amazing.

Now I am going to talk about the business of today, which is Bill C-5. Bill C-5 is divided into two different pieces of legislation or parts. The first is the free trade and labour mobility act in Canada; the second is the building Canada act.

The free trade and labour mobility act has also been divided into two. There are two major initiatives within it. Both have to do with federal standards. The first is to say that any product or service that is authorized or licensed by the province would now be recognized by the federal government. In a similar vein, any provincially recognized profession would now be recognized federally.

The second part of the bill is with respect to the building Canada act. The building Canada act has to do with getting projects built that are in the “national interest” of Canada. This legislation is quite ironic because it really says that all those walls, which were put in place over the last decade to stop major projects, would be removed if major projects were in the national interest. Why not just remove those walls to begin with? However, I digress.

Most of my comments will be about the free trade and labour mobility act. The member for Lakeland did a fantastic job. I recommend her short and pithy, but poignant, speech about the building Canada act to anyone who has the opportunity to check it out. She was right on point. However, when it comes to the free trade and Canada act, I think it is important to look at a little bit of context.

Members should remember that not too long ago we had a federal election. Of course, one of the major themes or discussion points in that election was what Canada's response would be to the Trump tariffs, to the pressure coming from perhaps limited access to our greatest trading partner. Both major parties said we should look at trading more within Canada. Numbers such as $200 billion were thrown out there as the amount of additional economic benefits that could come from eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and increasing trade within Canada.

I just want to read a couple of quotes from the Prime Minister on the election trail. On April 5, he said, “Our government has committed to remove all federal restrictions on mobility by Canada Day. Free trade in Canada. Free mobility by Canada Day”. On April 17, the Prime Minister said, “Secondly, to commit the federal government to do its part by Canada Day... So, free trade in Canada by Canada Day”. On April 20, the Prime Minister said, “Our government will do our part for free trade in Canada. We will legislate the removal of all federal restrictions by July 1st. Free trade in Canada by Canada Day”.On April 21, the Prime Minister said, “And we'll work with the provinces to make sure all our health care professionals can work anywhere in Canada, as part of a drive for free trade in Canada by Canada Day.”

It is pretty clear what the Prime Minister committed to. He committed to having no interprovincial trade barriers by July 1, specifically, neither provincial and federal. That is what free trade in Canada by Canada Day means. The reality is that that will not happen even if this legislation gets passed by July 1. The reason is that the scope of this legislation is so very limited. It is limited to products, services and occupations that are federal in nature.

The reality is that most products and services, or at least a large portion of them, are regulated by the provinces. Most occupations are regulated provincially. For example, if a nurse who was accredited in B.C. wants to move to Ontario, they have to be re-accredited in Ontario. This legislation will not affect that. There will be a very limited impact on labour mobility in Canada by July 1, even going forward. With respect to products and services that is also usually the case. The products are regulated at the provincial level. The barriers then stop interprovincial trade from occurring.

I have a spoiler alert to everyone out there: The Liberals have already broken a promise. We will not have free trade in Canada by Canada Day.

There was a much more sensible approach. Instead of misleading Canadians during the election, they could have done what our leader, Pierre Poilievre, did and actually have a plan that would work, that would deliver real financial and economic benefits for Canada.

The first part would be to incentivize provinces. What is happening here is that the government is failing to meet the moment. We had an opportunity. Often, crises come with opportunities. There was a silver lining. It was creating momentum towards free trade. We saw the premiers working on their own accord to tear down barriers, but the federal government could have had a big role.

In accordance with the Conservatives' campaign promise, the government could have provided financial incentive. It could have included in this legislation that if the provinces tear down x barrier, they will get this much more money from the federal government. The best part about this is that these types of benefits actually pay for themselves. As Trevor Tombe and others have written, the financial benefit of actually reducing barriers, and not just making a press conference or a show of it, is hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal government could share some of the benefit from that with the provinces, but it chose not to.

The other part is that the government could have worked with provinces to create that Blue Seal program, allowing nurses, doctors and other health care professionals to work from coast to coast. Instead, the government has sort of gone from elbows up to turn, tuck tail and run. It continues to walk away from anything that is difficult or hard. The government could have used the momentum it had gathered, worked with premiers who are more than willing. I must say, our premiers have done a great job in many respects to tear down these barriers, but federal leadership here would have been invaluable. However, once again, the government, well, it just does not do “hard”.

For example, one thing the government could have done to make major progress was work to eliminate various trucking standards. This may not sound like the fanciest or the most exciting topic in the world, but it is incredibly important, because nearly every product we receive that goes on the shelves goes in a truck at some point.

Right now, we have a myriad of different trucking regulations, from different weights to different safety restrictions. Some estimates put an increase in freight rates at 8%, affecting Canada's GDP by $1.6 billion. If we were able to get a harmonized or mutual recognition system in the trucking industry, that would literally make almost every product in our country cheaper. At a time when we see grocery prices going through the roof, and an affordability crisis, would that not be something great for Canadians to have?

The Prime Minister could have made bold decisions. Instead of these little baby steps along the way, he could have made bold steps, such as repealing Bill C-69, which would have allowed projects to be approved, which would have allowed those national projects that have forever stitched our country together, a country that started with the railroad that built our country. We need those national projects both for our economy and also to bring us together, to unite us. Those projects will continue to be extremely difficult in the absence of a repeal of Bill C-69.

Quite frankly, although the building Canada act may get more projects built, would it not be more sensible to instead tear down the framework of Bill C-69? The last decade has proven the government cannot get major projects in place. Build it down, restart the process, open up with a one-window project, not just for those who are friends of Liberal insiders but for all Canadians, for all proponents who are willing to throw down their hard-earned money in order to build national projects.

Instead of the Prime Minister rising to meet the moment, to eliminate all interprovincial trade barriers, to bring our country together, to make our country greater and more prosperous, the government decided to take the easy way out and make small revisions to interprovincial trade that will not accomplish it. Instead of saving the Canadian economy billions and creating more prosperity from coast to coast, it will merely be another photo op, another wrong step along the way towards interprovincial trade, towards making Canada a truly free trade zone.

Here is to free trade in Canada on the Canada Day when Conservatives have a majority government.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it probably would surprise people that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I have had a good working relationship from time to time, even though we, too, disagree on many different issues or the approach to them, based on our different perspectives and also on the differences between the people we represent. That is the wonderful democracy and diversity of Canada, is it not?

I absolutely, 100% agree with the member on this issue, just as we agreed about Bill C-69. It is specifically why I am saying that the Liberals must amend Bill C-5 to include transparency on the project list and to ensure that all the things they say the bill will do are actually in the law. As the member has pointed out, all that matters is what is actually in the law. Hopefully, we all can work together as opposition parties to get these guys to fix their workaround.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's respect in appreciating working with our friend from the Bloc Québécois. The Greens love working with the hon. member for Lakeland too. People will be surprised, perhaps, though not the member for Lakeland, to find that I voted against Bill C-69 because I think it is really terrible legislation.

One of the things that I think the member for Lakeland and I both believe, and we may find we agree, is that legislation around environmental review should be based on factual criteria that are established in law, not press releases, and that we should keep political discretion to an absolute minimum.

That said, I am wondering, since the member has read the legislation, Bill C-5, how on earth she can vote for it on this abbreviated bulldozer time frame.

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before question period, Bill C-5 is the opposite of inherent clarity and certainty. The Prime Minister and the minister both claim the projects that provincial and territorial premiers submit to federal politicians, who will then themselves determine whether they are in the national interest, will be approved within two years, except that there is not a single concrete timeline in this bill.

This is familiar because it is the same claim the Liberals made about Bill C-69, but they included much political interference and many tools for the commissioner or politicians to start, stop, extend and restart the reviews ad infinitum. There were no concrete timelines in Bill C-69 either, but in Bill C-5, the words “two years” literally do not exist.

Since the Liberals claim the bill is a reaction to U.S. energy dominance and economic threats so that they can start, just now, trying to make Canada stronger, they should also look at the U.S. timelines to make sure Canada can compete and beat the U.S. to approvals and to market. I am sorry to say that two years was definitely competitive with the IRA three years ago, when Conservatives first called for the Liberals to match it, and it still is overall, but the U.S. now has emergency permitting procedures that approve nuclear, oil and gas, mining and uranium projects on federal lands of between 16 and 28 days. Its overall regulatory process is also set to be expedited. If the Prime Minister says this is a crisis, he should match his action to this crisis.

Bill C-5 does not impose two-year timelines by law in Canada, but if policy decisions afterward do execute the two-year timetable Liberals promise, that may end up keeping Canada lagging behind anyway. I think it is safe to say that Liberals always and often do too little, too late. The process is entirely secretive; that means there is no clarity, timeline, certainty or trust in Bill C-5.

Indigenous leaders from all different perspectives are already raising concerns. I have to say that it was quite astounding to watch a colleague, one I admire very much, the former Enoch chief, Treaty 6 grand chief and current Conservative MP for Edmonton Northwest, question the minister about whether he understands and has consulted with indigenous rights holders. By the way, I come from Treaty 6 territory. The minister named important advocacy groups for indigenous people but quite obviously either did not know or could not affirm that he has consulted with actual rights holders and titleholders. Even though one of the factors is to advance the interests of indigenous peoples, he has not talked to them yet. He is a decision-maker, by his own law, and courts have been clear about the duty for decision-makers to be at the table with indigenous leaders and to make a dynamic effort to address and mitigate adverse impacts. I am not sure that the set-up of an indigenous advisory council will stand up to challenge. All Canadians should be concerned about this.

Meanwhile, Canadians wait, projects stay stalled in the queue, billions in investments sit idle and families lose out on good jobs because of Liberal delays, red tape and uncertainty. Bill C-5 does not fix the real problems; rather, it gives a way for a select, politically hand-picked list to circumvent all the laws and policies the Liberals previously, and elsewhere, argued are just critical and are the most crucial for the environment, economies, communities and indigenous people. These are laws that the Liberals howl about any time Conservatives dare to criticize, question or try to improve them. The list includes the Fisheries Act; the Indian Act; the International River Improvements Act; the National Capital Act; the Canadian Navigable Waters Act; the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994; section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act; the Canada Marine Act; division 3 of part 7 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; the Species at Risk Act; the Canadian Energy Regulator Act; the migratory bird sanctuary regulations; the Dominion water power regulations; wildlife area regulations; the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations; and the Liberals' own migratory bird regulations, 2022.

Let us be honest. If the Liberals now want to ignore these laws for their preferred projects, that confirms two things. First, these policies have stopped development for years. Second, even if the Liberals claim they will approve projects in two years, that claim matters only if the projects survive legal challenges after approval, so the proponents can build them on their own timeline and on their own dime.

What happens afterwards is also crucial. What happens when activists challenge the approvals and exemptions in court? From the list I just read, I dare say that there will be more than a few Canadian advocacy groups of all different kinds concerned about this plan. What happens when those approvals and exemptions are challenged? What happens when litigation and the weaponization of bylaws and laws from other provinces and other municipalities halt progress again? What will the Liberals do then? Will they attack their own laws or retreat and refuse to enforce federal jurisdiction, as they have done before, deliberately, to kill pipelines and other projects?

Bill C-5 raises more questions than answers, and Canadians deserve the truth. This bill sets up a process that will help a few and leave most behind.

On Wednesday, the natural resources minister said, “I think what we said is that we do not pick the projects.” However, he also said, “projects bubble up from consultations between the federal government, provincial government, indigenous peoples”. When I asked the same question again, about the ministers and cabinet as decision-makers, the minister said, “the politicians do not pick the projects.” However, it is clear from public communications after meetings with premiers that they are, and Bill C-5 clearly says:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project is in the national interest, the Governor in Council—

It is otherwise known as cabinet.

—may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend Schedule 1 to add the name of the project and a brief description of it, including the location where it is to be carried out.

Well, that language confirms that the minister plays a direct role and is the decision-maker. The minister can also remove projects from the list:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project named in Schedule 1 is no longer in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend that Schedule to delete the name and the description of the project.

That is some certainty. Despite the minister's claims, Bill C-5 shows that political discretion, his discretion, decides which projects stay or go, which project people win and which lose. Already one wonders whether the responsible minister, after my engagement with him on Wednesday night, actually even knows what is being proposed in his own bill.

Again, there is a public list of major resource and infrastructure projects ready to go, real projects with real proponents that could be deemed in the national interest and fast-tracked immediately. The 28 mining and energy proposals sitting in front of the regulators could be fast-tracked right now.

It is also curious that one of the acts the Liberal government could decide to sidestep through Bill C-5 is the Conflict of Interest Act. Of course, the Prime Minister refused to disclose his own conflicts or where he paid his taxes, and his businesses preferred to invest in pipelines and energy in the U.S. and overseas, not in Canada. Already, this sure looks like the same scandal-plagued, backroom-dealing Liberals, does it not?

It should also concern all Canadians that the plan in Bill C-5 is for most of the specifics to be dealt with through policy and regulations afterwards, not transparently and clearly in the law: more inherent uncertainty. This bill also mixes public and private infrastructure, while the ministers will not give details about the projects. Canadians would be wise to consider the lack of distinction and whether the Liberals will continue their state corporate financing schemes that always put taxpayers at risk while insiders benefit.

Canadians do not want backroom deals. They want a system that works. They want government to clear the path for Canadian responsible resource development by Canadian workers with Canadian materials.

The Liberals also keep talking about the need for consensus on projects, and they mean especially for pipelines. However, neither they nor Bill C-5 defines what that involves. Is it consensus from the anti-pipeline environment and culture ministers? Is it consensus from half the anti-energy Liberals who are still in the Liberal cabinet while they try to sound like Conservatives and are actually diametrically opposed to what they have said and done for a decade? I mean, it is amazing they can stand here and look at us with straight faces and do that.

The Liberals claim they want consensus, but Canadians know they do not even have it in their own cabinet, and Bill C-5 sets out cabinet as the decision-makers. Is it consensus from all provinces, even though some have already said no before and are saying no again, even though interprovincial pipelines for export are indisputably federal jurisdiction?

The Liberal government previously failed to enforce federal jurisdiction and the rule of law, and let activists and other levels of government weaponize laws and bylaws against proponents that already had approval. That failure is exactly what forced the private sector proponent for TMX to abandon its attempts to build, because the federal government did not use its tools to give legal, political and jurisdictional certainty for the private sector proponent to go ahead, even after the government approved it after risking it, ended up buying it and then created a costly, delayed, nationalized project. It was a dangerous signal to all investors that Canada is a place where the private sector cannot build and government will always rely on taxpayers.

Are the Liberals aware that there is already a very strong consensus among everyday Canadians everywhere across the country that Canada needs more pipelines? It has been that way for a long time, but it is growing. It is higher than ever before. The latest data shows 79% of Canadians overall, and guess what. Of Quebeckers, 86% want more pipelines for national energy security and resilience. A supermajority of Canadians are in consensus, so it is time for the Liberals to stop delaying, dithering and dodging if they really mean all their suddenly new and plagiarized words about wanting Canada to be an energy superpower.

Canadians can be forgiven for skepticism about the broad categories for national interest projects that the premiers pushed the Prime Minister and ministers to agree on. On the western Arctic energy corridor, Conservatives have always fought for northerners to make decisions, to get more revenue from resource development and to increase Canada's defence and security capabilities in the north, but the Liberals banned unleashing Arctic energy unilaterally from a different country and indefinitely. They also imposed massive antidevelopment areas that keep northerners from benefiting from their own natural wealth in a place where there is a humanitarian, housing and food crisis and few opportunities for self-sufficiency that are not related to responsible resource development, if only the government would let them develop resources.

As for the eastern energy partnership, these exact Liberals used political interference, changing goalposts and conditions never seen before or since, to force the proponent, which had spent $1 billion, to abandon the nation-building pipeline that would have linked Canada economically and physically for self-sufficiency, self-reliance and national unity. They killed that east-to-west pipeline even though private investors offered to fund it entirely. The pipeline would have connected Canadian energy from coast to coast for self-sufficiency, and they interfered to kill it because of political pressure, even though it too was a proposal strictly in federal jurisdiction.

Why should anyone believe them now? Maybe what they actually mean is connecting power among the Atlantic provinces, to which Conservatives say that the natural resources committee told the government to build interties in 2017. It did not, and then it tried to study that all over again just a few months ago before Christmas. Do members know what my advice is? Why do the Liberals not just try to get the really simple things done first?

As for a critical minerals pathway, in 2022, these same Liberals announced a critical minerals strategy. How many new mines were approved from it? There were zero. For example, Canada still does not export a single teaspoon of lithium, none, while global demand rises and China dominates the global production value and supply chains. In 2024, lithium demand rose 30%, but Canada could not provide it because mines in Canada take up to 25 years from concept to being shovel-ready under the Liberals. Why should Canadians think that 2025's critical minerals pathway will be different?

Is the next stage nuclear? Premiers from all across the country have called nuclear critical to Canada's energy future. Conservatives agree, but the Liberals have still not given a straight answer. Do all nuclear projects qualify for investment tax credits to compete with the U.S., or will they only be accessible to a few, like SMRs and large-scale plants, which are also important?

If the Liberals are serious about one project, one review, why do they not fix the fundamental problem instead of the short-term Bill C-5 queue-jumping workaround? For nuclear, for which Canada has long been world-renowned and viewed as an expert by other countries, proposals already face two reviews: an impact assessment and a full review by the expert Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Why?

Why can there not be a one project, one review process like Conservatives have always promoted to get things built? Why could the minister not say definitively that the existing nuclear proposals stalled in review right now are in the national interest? Canada cannot attract investment when the rules shift and are vague and politicized. Businesses and workers need clarity, not confusion and more questions.

With respect to infrastructure for trade diversification, the government cannot even get roads built, and the culture minister said he does not think Canada needs anymore anyway. The Webequie supply road project, the Marten Falls community access road and the northern road link project, all backed and co-owned by indigenous communities, which would unlock the Ring of Fire, remain locked in the regulator right now.

Therefore, forgive Conservatives for suggesting that government cannot unleash critical minerals if it cannot even get the roads built to develop and transport them, and those roads are the place to start. It is time to stop talking and start approving. Canadians deserve leadership that actually sets attractive, competitive investment conditions so the private sector can build. The track record of the Liberals is the opposite.

There are projects that promise not only billions for our economy but also jobs for our communities, paycheques for Canadians and revenue for governments for infrastructure programs. Let us talk about some of those numbers.

Here are some of the projects that have been killed by the Liberals. The Grassy Point LNG project had a loss of $10 billion. The West Coast Canada LNG project had a loss of $25 billion. The Aurora LNG project had a loss of $28 billion. The Prince Rupert LNG project had a loss of $11 billion. The Pacific NorthWest LNG project had a loss of $11 billion. The Kwispaa LNG project had a loss of $18 billion. The Énergie Saguenay LNG project lost $4 billion.

The Frontier oil sands mine project had a loss of $20.6 billion. The Aspen oil sands project lost $2.6 billion. The Dunkirk oil sands SAGD project had a loss of $2.4 billion. The Muskwa SAGD oil sands project had a loss of $800 million; the Carmon Creek oil sands project had a loss of $3 billion. The Frederick Brook shale project had a loss of $700 million. The Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline project had a loss of $16 billion. The energy east pipeline had a loss of $15.7 billion. The northern gateway pipeline had a loss of $7.9 billion.

These are just a few examples of the lost $670 billion in cancelled or suspended projects on the same Liberals' watch. How can the Liberals really pretend to play team Canada when they have done everything possible to hold Canada back, especially when half the cabinet ministers are exactly the same as the old ones?

The Liberals have claimed falsely there was no business case for these projects, except there obviously was to the private sector proponents ready to make major long-term investment and to all the countries who want more Canada. The Liberals have let Canada's competitors win, and they have made Canadians lose. It is not only allies that have surpassed Canada and profited from it because of the Liberals; it is also our adversaries and hostile imperialist regimes that have out-gamed and outpaced the west, while politicians here dithered, virtue signalled and imposed policies and laws that kill Canadian jobs, Canadian businesses, Canadian supply chains and have made Canada more expensive, more vulnerable and weak.

In March 2022, Latvia said it “would wholeheartedly support” Canadian LNG to cut reliance on Russia. In June 2022, Ukraine said it was seeking Canadian LNG. Years into Russia's invasion, Canada still has no east coast LNG exports because their opponents abandoned the three proposals just in the last couple of years in Atlantic Canada, probably in part because the Liberals kept saying there was no business case. Some confidence the Liberals had in Canada. Ten years of elbows down and resources in the ground made Canada a target, and Conservatives warned them all along.

In August 2022, Germany begged for Canadian LNG, but the Liberals rejected that ally. Then they made a deal with Qatar, which hides Hamas and gets to rake in billions of dollars and drive in the desert with fancy sports cars and Rolex watches, while Canadians' food prices become the highest in the G7, unemployment rates skyrocket and the Liberals' plan to ban internal combustion engines. In December 2022, Poland looked to Canada for LNG to diversify energy sources, obviously for its national security, but it got nothing. In January 2023, Japan formally requested Canadian LNG. The Liberals refused. In February 2023, one month later, Japan's ambassador said, “The world is waiting for Canada”. The Liberals keep it waiting.

In May 2023, South Korea wanted Canadian LNG. The Liberals did nothing. In March 2024, Greece's prime minister said it absolutely wanted Canada's LNG, but Liberals refused to grant export licences. In April 2024, Poland's president said it would, of course, buy Canadian LNG, if Liberals made it available. In May 2024, the Philippines expressed interest in Canadian LNG trade and investment. There was nothing from the Liberals. In November 2024, Taiwan wanted to buy and invest in Canadian LNG, for obvious security reasons and self-reliance in its region, which all Canadians should care about. The Liberals blocked it.

In February 2025, Canada refused Japan's LNG request, also with another obvious security implication. After Canada had refused Japan's LNG request in 2023, this is what happened in February 2025: the U.S. delivered a multi-trillion dollar LNG deal to Japan instead. Mexico has now flown past Canada for LNG exports, while the U.S. is the top in the world.

The Liberals started with 15 LNG proposals in 2015. Only three were approved, and only one is operational now. By the way, the one that is operational now was approved by the former Conservative government and then delayed, put through another review and put at risk by the Liberals. We all are lucky that the proponent hung in. The Liberals should not delay on approving its second phase.

During that time, during the loss of 15 LNG proposals in Canada, the U.S. approved 28, with 12 approved, 8 under construction and 8 operational right now. The U.S. is now the top exporter in the world of LNG. Canada should have been ahead of it and a key partner for North American energy and national security, but the Liberals held Canada back with a distinctly elbows-down approach, except against Canadians. They sure gave us one or two or ten.

The Prime Minister says it is elbows up against the United States, but year after year, the same Liberals handed the Americans trillions of dollars from Canada on a silver platter. The U.S. must remain Canada's top ally, with safe borders and integrated security, and it is our top ally, but there is no doubt that because of the Liberals, the U.S. is also our top competitor, as a result of damaging Canadian domestic policy.

Conservatives have always been the consistent advocates for certainty, clarity and competitive, fast approvals to make Canada strong, self-reliant and united, so of course we hope—

Oil and Gas Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, because of the government's economic failures, Newfoundland and Labrador is once again dependent on equalization payments from the west. Newfoundland's employment has been entangled with the west for decades. We understand that when the west does better, all Canada does better, but in order for the west to succeed, it needs to get its resources to market.

Will the current Liberal government repeal Bill C-69, which stops new pipelines; repeal Bill C-48 that blocks our shipping exports; and remove production caps so all of Canada can prosper?

Natural Resources

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, can members imagine driving to work every day wondering if that is the day they are going to get laid off? For 10 years, the Liberals have had antidevelopment policies, like Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the emissions cap and the industrial carbon tax. These hard-working men and women deserve a much better answer than that.

Will the government be like the old government? Is the new guy the same as the old guy, with no pipelines? Pipelines deserve to be built in this country. They run our economy. Will the Liberals use Canadian steel in pipelines?

Canadian Energy Sector

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after ten years of Liberal anti-energy laws, over 176 billion dollars' worth of energy projects have been scrapped. Bills such as Bill C-69, the so-called “no new energy pipelines” law, and Bill C-48, along with the job-killing carbon tax, have created so much red tape and uncertainty that energy companies will not even invest here anymore.

In the B.C. interior, countless families depend on the oil and gas sector to put food on the table. Even our regional airports rely on flight revenues tied to energy-related travel and investment, but because of stalled pipelines, investment and job creation have dried up, not just in my riding, but across Canada.

If the Liberals are serious about making Canada an energy superpower, they need to repeal their own anti-energy agenda, lift Bill C-69, remove Bill C-48, kill the industrial carbon tax and get Canadians back to work by finally tapping into our natural resources.

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, where is Canada after this last, lost, anti-development Liberal decade? Only 11 years ago, Canada became internationally recognized as home to the richest and biggest middle class in the world, with more children lifted out of poverty than ever before. Heading into 2015, the budget was under control, with a billion-dollar surplus, and Canada's economy was the strongest in the G7, the last in and the first out of the great global recession.

Today, Canada's economy has fallen behind those of our allies. Productivity lags. Workers cannot make ends meet and wonder whose job will be gone next. Canada's natural wealth sits idle in the ground and offshore. Investment heads south and to other countries. Families, and people with no one else to count on but themself, fall further behind. Young people lose hope for their future and wonder whether they will ever be able to afford a home, build up a nest egg or actually capture their big dreams.

Communities lose opportunities and dwindle. Businesses close due to excessive red tape, taxes, costs and constant uncertainty, and they have to reduce their charitable and community contributions. Violence, crime, mental distress and suicide, especially among rural men, are on a steady rise.

Killing energy projects does not just cost jobs; it also costs communities. It takes away critical revenue to build roads and bridges. It takes away revenue for critical supports for social programs; to build arenas; to support health care, like the long-term partnerships with the Lloydminster and Bonnyville regional health foundations and energy companies; and to build schools and universities.

Today, Canada works for the super-rich, the well established, the elites, the well-connected, the big companies of all kinds, mostly foreign-founded and multinationals. It does not work for the Canadian people who do the work, take big risks and build big projects: individual entrepreneurs, small business owners, innovators, and workers and contractors who fuel, feed and power this country for our Canadian people. That is the Liberal legacy; the cost to Canadians is real, and it is staggering.

Today, we as MPs find ourselves in an odd position. The very same government that inflicted the last decade of anti-energy, anti-private-sector death by delay and uncertainty on natural resource workers and businesses in every corner of Canada, that harmed all the secondary and tertiary sectors that depend on it everywhere, that sent allies away in dire need of Canadian resources, and that divided our country, pitting Canadians, provinces, businesses and sectors against each other, suddenly claims to want big natural resources and infrastructure projects to get built in Canada, so it brought in Bill C-5, with all kinds of big promises.

However, at its heart, Bill C-5 is really a glaring admission that everything the Liberals have done for the last 10 years has made Canada a place where the red tape and constantly changing goalposts get to “no”, and nothing can get built efficiently or affordably.

The real question is this: Would the Liberals' Bill C-5 really clean up the colossal mess the Liberals themselves have made? Where are the projects held back by the lost Liberal decade? Where are the investments that would have created prosperity for every single Canadian? Where are the thousands of well-paid jobs for Canadians everywhere, and especially in rural, remote, northern, Atlantic and indigenous communities that need them most? Where are the revenues for all three levels of government to fund public services and programs, build public infrastructure and support communities?

Where has all that gone, and how much are we talking about here anyway? Well, Canada has lost $670 billion in cancelled oil, gas, LNG and pipeline projects alone since 2015, due completely to the Liberals' anti-energy, anti-development messages, policies and laws.

On Wednesday night, in committee of the whole, the minister and I discussed Bill C-5 a bit. I suggested an obvious, immediate first step, if the Liberals really want to get Canadians working and building to strengthen Canada's economy and sovereignty, that would not require weeks and months of delay, meeting after meeting, and press conference promises with very few details.

The minister said I brought up “hypothetical projects”, and he refused to say whether they met his factors for projects in the national interest, which the Liberals themselves will decide. That was alarming in itself, since the projects I mentioned are real projects, with real proponents, that would offer real jobs with powerful paycheques for Canadians and long-term tax revenue for all three levels of government. Real businesses are paying real money and losing real time trying to get to build their big projects. The problem is that they are stuck in one form of federal regulation or red tape right now.

The immediate solution is blindingly obvious, without all the extra rigamarole, uncertainty and time delays. What was extra weird about the minister's evasion is that of the five vague factors the Liberals have outlined for Bill C-5, which they will use themselves to decide what is in the national interest, two of these factors are that projects must bring economic or other benefits to Canada and that they must have a high likelihood of successful execution. Clearly the top priority action, then, to fast-track efficiently should be all the projects and proponents stuck in red tape right now by the Liberals' own conditions.

Where is the Crawford nickel-cobalt mine project near Timmins, Ontario? It was proposed in 2020 but is stuck in the regulatory mess the Liberals created. Where is the Troilus gold and copper mining project in Quebec? It has been stuck in the regulator since 2023. Where are the Rook I uranium mine and Denison uranium mine projects in northern Saskatchewan? They were proposed in 2019 and are both still stuck. Where is the Bruce C nuclear project planned for Ontario? It is stuck in double layers of regulatory review.

It is no wonder Canada ranks dead last in the G7 for development. The projects are not only lost in red tape; they also seem to be lost completely from consideration by the minister, since he was so adamant on Tuesday night that they did not exist. They are five projects, five chances to grow Canada's economy, five chances to lead the world in energy, innovation, responsible resource development and indigenous opportunities.

Of course, it is not only those five projects. In fact, there are dozens of major energy, nuclear, critical mineral and indigenous-backed resource road proposals that are stuck in limbo right now at the federal level. These projects are not theoretical; they have names, investors and local support. They have involved years of engineering, technical, environmental and consultation work, risk and investment.

The missing piece is a federal government with a will to fast-track the assessments through the regulatory maze it created itself, to approve them efficiently and to back proponents once they approve them so proponents can actually build on their time and on their dime. In Bill C-69, as would also be the case in Bill C-5, cabinet is the final decision-maker, with all the power.

Currently, both officials and ministers already have significant sweeping powers to start, stop, restart, extend, delay and suspend, and to change the rules and start all over again as many times as they want. It is no wonder things cannot get built. The government also has the power to fast-track the projects right now. Instead, it ignores all the real and ready projects, proponents and people, and has brought in a short-term workaround of its own bad policies and laws, Bill C-5.

The Liberals talk about emissions reduction and imposed electric vehicle mandates, and they want so-called green growth, but they stalled the very projects needed to make all that happen. We cannot build electric vehicles without nickel, lithium and cobalt, currently dominated by China. We cannot power a reliable, affordable modern grid without uranium and natural gas. We cannot reduce emissions and build new technology without the innovation, jobs and revenues that come from responsible Canadian resource development, mostly from traditional oil and gas, and from pipeline companies.

Alberta is an example. By 2023, Alberta oil sands reduced emissions intensity while growing production by 96%. Alberta leads the country in alternative energy development too, as in fact it always has.

According to the federal government's national inventory report from 2025, Alberta had the largest absolute reduction in emissions of any Canadian province between 2022 and 2023. That is the truth the Liberals will not tell Canadians. Albertans cut emissions not by shutting down, but by showing up and building through free enterprise, innovation and technology, getting better emissions reduction results, real emissions reduction results, without killing jobs or driving away investment. However, the Liberal government still treats as problems not solutions Alberta and every province that develops resources, those of us in the so-called ROC, the rest of Canada, that politicians in Ottawa usually ignore. The Liberals punish the most responsible energy producers in the world and give a free pass to foreign polluters. They celebrate emissions reductions in Canada when they come from lockdowns, lost jobs and bankrupt businesses.

Canadians cannot afford essentials because the government drives up costs and imposes unrealistic targets on power and fuel. It is worse when the facts do not fit the Liberals' narrative. When it turns out that Alberta reduces emissions the most, the Liberals stay silent. When LNG could displace coal from growing energy demand in Asia, India and Africa from B.C., or help secure European energy needs and cut dependence on Russia, the Liberals turn allies away. When western provinces want to build major projects or northerners want to mine and drill offshore, the Liberals deny, ban and delay. When Atlantic Canadians want to drill offshore, ship LNG to Europe or have a pipeline to bring western oil to eastern refineries so future generations of Atlantic Canadians can stay home with jobs and abundant opportunities, the Liberals interfere and then look away.

Let me pause here to tell members how important that issue is to me, because the fact is that Atlantic Canadians and Albertans are inextricably linked. We have helped build each other's provinces in the best interests of all Canadians. I say that as a first-generation born-and-raised Albertan and the daughter of a Nova Scotian and a Newfoundlander.

The Liberals spend years talking about reconciliation, yet delay, risk or kill pipelines, roads, mining projects and LNG opportunities that so many indigenous leaders, elders, youth, entrepreneurs and workers spent years negotiating with businesses to get jobs, to get their own-source revenue and to do environmental oversight in a good way. The Liberals claim to support first nations but deny them the opportunity to own, to build, to partner and to profit. It is not reconciliation when Ottawa decides who can build and who must wait. It is not partnership when one side always says no. It is not respect when indigenous voices are ignored because they want to make their own development decisions and exercise their rights and title.

The bill that we are debating today proves what Conservatives have said all along: The Liberals' antidevelopment agenda kills Canadian jobs, kills Canadian investment, weakens Canada's security, unity and sovereignty, and has made our country a risky place where nothing can get built and where uncompetitive, pancaked and incoherent taxes, laws and policies; uncertainty; and constantly changing goalposts deter big projects from our own country.

Canadians deserve a plan based on facts and results, not vague statements and delay from the same government that caused the problems it suddenly now claims to want to fix. The consequences of the Liberals' antidevelopment decade are growing poverty, not prosperity, and fractured national unity. The Liberals pit Canadians against each other and attack Albertan businesses in particular with constant misinformation and myths.

The reality is that when Alberta builds and grows, so does Canada, and when Alberta is strong, so is Canada. Albertans have been there all along with our friends from Saskatchewan and from Atlantic Canada. We have just been asking the Liberals to help get the country's top export from the industry that is still the biggest investor in Canada's declining economy by far, whether the anti-energy zealots like it or not, to more markets globally so Canada is not dependent on the United States.

Ten years later, ten years of this lost last antidevelopment Liberal decade, Canada faces economic, security and sovereignty threats from our closest ally, the world's biggest economy, our biggest customer and now, because the Liberals held Canada back every step of the way, our biggest competitor. Canadians cannot afford essentials, because the government drove up the costs of power and fuel for everyone.

Make no mistake; it did not have to be this way. With all due respect, by which I mean almost none, the time to “build Canada” and make our country self-reliant, secure, united and strong was the last decade. The answer has always been to unleash Canada's natural resources and increase production and export customers, as Conservatives and only Conservatives have consistently and unequivocally advocated the entire time. This was never actually an even-sided theoretical or philosophical debate. It has always been simply the fiscal and economic reality of our country.

Canadians deserve a government that backs them, not a government that blocks them and not a government that pees down our leg and tells us it is raining. Bill C-5 is breadcrumbs and baby steps, not a real breakthrough of Liberal-inflicted barriers on Canada. Our country needs real change and long-term, concrete certainty for the private sector and for Canadian workers to make us autonomous, resilient and secure, as the Liberals say they want to do now, even though they have been in charge around here for the last 10 years.

What would that actually look like? It would mean fixing the fundamentals and repealing the failed “no new pipelines, never build anything” bill, Bill C-69, which is rife with uncertainty; which has no concrete timelines despite Liberal claims, arbitrary and unrelated conditions, political interference and jurisdictional overreach; and which the provinces, territories, businesses and indigenous groups all oppose or want to overhaul. The Supreme Court declared Bill C-69 unconstitutional for every single reason that Conservatives, and it happened to be me, warned about during the debates. However, Liberals ignored this entire Conservative team, all the premiers, all the territorial leaders, the private sector and the Senate and rammed it through anyway.

The government should repeal the shipping ban bill, Bill C-48, which blocks dedicated export routes for Canada's much-needed energy to countries with actual emerging markets that need Canadian energy and technology in Asia, like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines, and to European allies like Germany, Latvia, Ukraine, Greece and Poland.

The geopolitical security aspects of this issue, obviously, cannot be overstated. That ban signals that shipping may be blocked by the government off any coast, just like its offshore unilateral drilling bans and antidevelopment zones on land and in water, but it stays. Clearly, the Liberals are A-okay with Canada's allies and other countries getting energy they will continue to want long into the future from the U.S. or from foreign regimes like Venezuela, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia over Canada, with much lower environmental, labour and safety standards and where the benefits usually only go to a wealthy few.

The government should repeal the Canadian oil and gas cap that will cut Canadian energy production by 5%, kill over 50,000 jobs and remove over $20 billion from Canada's GDP. That is self-inflicted sabotage that no other country in the world is doing to itself and totally nonsensical for what is actually a radical anti-energy government suddenly plagiarizing, like someone's thesis, the former Conservative government's vision for Canada as an energy superpower.

While the minister and his Liberal buddies laughed when I asked questions about job losses, Canadians stress, wondering where their next paycheque will come from. In 2021, TD Economics projected that of Canadian oil and gas jobs, up to 75% could disappear by 2050. The Liberals call it a transition for Canada. It is devastation.

The Liberals should repeal the globalist, top-down economic restructuring, just transition plan in Bill C-50 that they already know will threaten the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians and cause labour disruptions, which is bureaucratese for job losses, for 642,000 workers in the transportation sector, almost 300,000 agriculture workers, 202,000 energy workers and, get this, 193,000 in Canada's important manufacturing sector, which is maybe more important than ever before, given this world becoming more dangerous and the global threats that Canada faces because this Liberal government has failed us.

The truth is, the future does not look brighter with the same government pretending to be a new one. TD reports the unemployment rate in Canada has risen to its highest rate since 2016, outside of COVID, to 7%, and 100,000 jobs are to be lost by the third quarter of this year. The job outlook for students is even worse, with a 20% unemployment rate; that is the highest since the 2008 recession. In fact, Canadian manufacturing has lost 55,000 jobs in a period of only four months. This is not getting Canada on track; it is the continued track record of the same Liberal government, and we know what they say about lipstick on a pig.

It was not always this way. Under the former Conservative government, Canada ranked fourth for ease of doing business of all countries in the world. However, by 2020, with the Liberals, Canada had fallen to 24th, behind Georgia and Thailand. Today, Canada ranks near the bottom globally for construction permits, property registration, securing electricity and cross-border trade. In fact, Canada is ranked second worst in the OECD for construction permit timelines because of the Liberals.

The Liberals' blocked projects, hiked taxes and doubled debt have made Canada 30% less productive than the U.S. today. Since 2015, $5.6 trillion has left Canada for the U.S. That is not a coincidence; that is a Liberal consequence. The trend of Canadian investment up in the U.S. and U.S. investment down in Canada is a historic anomaly caused squarely, and for the first time ever, by the Liberals' damaging economic and energy policies.

Just last week, StatsCan reported a more than 5% decline in forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying, and oil and gas since last spring. Declines in primary and resource-producing sectors impact everything else. Ontarians now face the worst unemployment, outside COVID, since 2013. In April alone, Ontario lost 33,000 manufacturing jobs. Tens of thousands of real people lost their jobs while the Liberals patronized and laughed at opposition MPs fighting for those workers. It is a travesty that it has taken global instability, external threats, growing conflicts and a cost-of-living crisis that the Liberals created for them to even appear to take notice.

Canadians now know, without a doubt, that energy security means food, job and national security for Canada. Last year, the energy sector contributed 7.7% of GDP, or $208.8 billion, to Canada; 446,600 Canadian workers, including 10,800 indigenous people, relied on natural resources. My point here is that none of this is accidental or externally inflicted on Canada. It is the direct result of domestic antidevelopment laws and policies. Canada's top global energy and resource competitors have ramped up their production of all kinds in the same time period, with much lower standards than Canada.

We now arrive at Bill C-5. The current Prime Minister, who advised the last one for half a decade and is well known for his global advocacy to keep resources in the ground, has not actually explained whether he has had some kind of major philosophical metamorphosis, transformation and awakening from all his previous values and views but nevertheless has met with premiers and businesses and suddenly claims to want to do what Conservatives have been urging the gatekeeping, road-blocking, radical Liberals to do the entire time, which is to build, build, build.

However, there are a lot of questions. Let us start at the beginning. As of right now, the Liberals say five factors will be considered to determine whether projects are in the national interest. Bill C-5 says a project must “strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security”; “provide economic or other”, whatever that means, “benefits to Canada”; “have a high likelihood of successful execution”; “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”; and “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.”

Now, it is worth a a pause here to point out that most Canadians would likely be shocked that these factors are not already part of regulatory and cabinet decision-making and may rightly wonder what the heck the government has been thinking about for the past decade.

Also, it is worth noting that these concepts are broad enough that any interpretation or any argument could be made about each factor either way for any project, which is, of course, automatically and inherently uncertain, and wide open to manipulation and ideological or politically connected decision-making. So much for objective, technology- and sector-agnostic, predictable, clear, certain and evidence-based decision-making in Canada.

As of right now, there is no public list of projects. Now, the Prime Minister says he is getting lists from provinces, and some premiers have said what their asks are, yet the minister claims there is no list and that that will happen after Bill C-5 is law. The minister specifically said on Wednesday, and I meant Wednesday earlier when I said Tuesday, that “when the projects are designated, they will be made public.”

Do the projects drive the legislation, or does the legislation drive the projects? Do they have a list from premiers or do they not? Nobody knows, because of mixed messages and misleading answers. What is clear is that the whole thing is a politically driven and determined process, which is, actually, already exactly what the Liberals have been doing for the last decade. That is the opposite of clarity and certainty--

Canadian Energy Sector

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has spent 10 years strangling Canada's energy sector with red tape and anti-energy laws and policy. The world came to us to ask for our help in supporting its energy security, and the former Liberal prime minister said no, that there was no business case.

The fact is that pipelines and infrastructure will not be built because of four Liberal laws: Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” act; Bill C-48, the west coast shipping ban; the job-killing oil and gas production cap; and the industrial carbon tax. Canada does not need the Liberal government to build pipelines. Canada needs the Liberal government to get out of the way so that the private sector can build our infrastructure and, in fact, make Canada an energy superpower.

Canadians call on the Liberal government to repeal their anti-energy laws and not just add more red tape to the pile. Let us stop the self-sabotage.