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.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying the word “pipeline”. I do believe pipelines will be nation building.

I would actually like to start my speech by talking briefly about the contributions of some of the great Conservative members who have done a lot to improve this flawed Liberal legislation.

There is the member for Lakeland, who has been leading the debate, leading the charge on bringing transparency and accountability to this legislation, and strongly supporting and representing the people of Alberta.

The member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna has done tremendous work supporting free trade across our country. Years before it became invoked, he was pushing to free the beer and free the wine, and we all should salute his great work.

The member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North was tremendous at committee, pushing for amendments to increase accountability and transparency in this flawed Liberal bill.

Finally, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk did an absolutely tremendous job working hard at committee to restore order to this otherwise flawed legislation.

Let me now start with where we are right now. Bill C-5 contains two pieces of legislation: one is the free trade and labour mobility act of Canada; the other is the building Canada act.

The free trade act, or so it is called, would be anything but free trade. The Prime Minister promised during the campaign that there would be free trade in Canada by Canada Day. We now know, as we are closing the last day of our sitting in Parliament before summer break, that there will not be free trade in Canada by Canada Day.

This, in addition to the tax cut, the massive expenditure, the consultant expenditure, is yet another broken Liberal promise. What this bill would do is allow, in certain circumstances, the authorization of provincially regulated products and services to be recognized in the federal context. It would also allow occupations that are authorized by provincial legislation to be recognized by federal legislation.

The challenge is that this is an extremely limited scope. The actual number of interprovincial trade barriers that are federal in nature is tiny, perhaps less than 5% of the total number of trade barriers. In addition to that, there would actually be federal trade barriers that remain after the passage of this bill, so we would not even have eliminated all of the federal trade barriers.

Oftentimes, as members of the opposition, Conservatives are accused of just providing critiques without solutions. We have solutions too. As the government has seemed adept at stealing Conservative ideas, I am hoping its members are listening. We have the blue seal program, which would allow nurses and doctors to work from coast to coast without the need to get accredited again and again, which, after this legislation passes, sadly, will still need to be done in many cases.

The other thing is that many of these are in provincial jurisdictions, which we heard brought up over and over again by the other side. The reality is, though, the Prime Minister has tremendous power, the power of moral suasion and the power of vision, to bring provinces together.

If nothing else, the Prime Minister also has the power of the purse. He has the ability to provide financial incentives to provinces, like my own province of Ontario, where provincial leadership has torn down some of these barriers. Why not provide a financial incentive, additional federal funds, for those provinces that have the vision to reduce their interprovincial trade barriers? The best part about this is that it likely would not cost the treasury a dime. The reason is that tremendous amounts of economic flow can be generated by reducing these interprovincial trade barriers, allowing for greater tax revenue, which is likely an offset to the reduction of these trade barriers.

Instead, the government has chosen to miss the moment, which is a real shame and a challenge. I extend an olive branch here, as I would love to work with the government over the coming months or years, however long it stays in power, to work with the provinces to get substantive work done to remove those interprovincial trade barriers and capitalize on the much-stated $200 billion in economic flows we can benefit from with the actual reduction of interprovincial trade barriers.

The second part of this bill is the building Canada act. The building Canada act is the greatest admission of failure by a government in recent history. Let me say that again: It is the greatest admission of failure by any government in recent history.

What the government is basically saying is that over the last 10 years, the old Liberal government, which is the same as the new Liberal government, put so many barriers in the way that it was impossible to build national projects, projects of national significance, projects that bring our country together.

John A. Macdonald was able to build an entire railroad from coast to coast in the 1800s. We cannot seem to build a simple pipeline that goes across a provincial border. We cannot build roads. According to the former minister of environment, we do not even need new roads.

We have put in Bill C-69. We have put in the oil and gas cap. I should say that the Liberals have. They have also put in place the industrial carbon tax. They have so tainted the ground that it is impossible to get these projects built.

What is their solution? I have an easy one for them. Repeal Bill C-69. Get rid of the oil and gas cap. Get rid of the industrial carbon tax.

No, the Liberals' solution is to do an end-around on all of those regulations they have put in place. Why not just fix them fundamentally?

Conservatives are stuck here. We are sitting here saying, well, we want national projects to be built. We do not love the fact that they have this discretion, but we need pipelines built, we need roads built, we need railroads built, not just to grow the country economically but to unite us together. Quite frankly, the country is more divided than I can remember in my lifetime because of 10 years of Liberal government. We need to bring it together.

Conservatives were stuck, leading into committee, with a situation, a very flawed bill but a bill that would, perhaps, at least allow some projects to go forward. What did Conservatives do? We got to work. We rolled up our sleeves. We went to work. We did not simply say no and allow projects to just die on the drawing floor. We decided to work with the Bloc Québécois, quite frankly, to put in place the amendments we needed to ensure accountability and transparency.

The member for Lakeland, particularly, did a great job of drafting and leading the charge on accountability and transparency amendments that would make sure the government could not do what it does best. Liberals are going to Liberal, quite frankly, which is to engage in corruption and cronyism.

What are some of the things Conservatives have done? We have worked with the Bloc Québécois to set up a parliamentary committee that will have to be reviewed on a regular basis. We are going to get transparency and accountability on those projects. Who is building this project? Why is it being built? How much public money is going to it? This is so we know what is going on and when.

The most nefarious parts of the legislation, in total, were clauses 21 to 23. The operation of these three clauses was absolutely mind-blowing. They call these Henry VIII clauses, actually. That is a fitting name, because the operation of these three clauses would have allowed the government to exempt any national project from any legislation passed since 1867. That includes the conflict of interest laws, the lobbying laws, the laws on income tax and the laws on the Criminal Code.

Conservatives said we were not going to let that happen. We want national projects to be built, but not at the cost of Canadian taxpayers' dollars going to Liberal insiders. We have seen 10 years of that. We do not need any more.

What we did was put in place amendments or safeguards around that to prevent Liberal cronyism, because we had the crazy idea that the government should not be able to exempt itself from the Criminal Code, the conflict of interest law, the Lobbying Act and the Investment Canada Act.

By the way, the Investment Canada Act is a particularly important one, I might add. The Investment Canada Act controls the impact of foreign investment within Canada. The disclosure rules in there are absolutely critical to protecting our economy, especially in a difficult geopolitical situation.

Here is the reality. We had to get somewhere, and the Liberals brought us a car; that car came in missing a tire and half an engine, polluting all over the place. It was terrible. Conservatives spent the last two weeks working our tails off to make this bill palatable, to prevent Liberal corruption, to prevent Liberal cronyism and to, hopefully, get some projects built here.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct that the bill does provide the government with discretion to approve projects. I guess where the Conservatives and the Bloc separate is the fact that the Bloc members voted for Bill C-69. They supported the industrial carbon tax. This is the very reason Bill C-5 is necessary.

Will the member vote with Conservatives to eliminate Bill C-69?

Natural Resources

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal anti-energy policies that drive out investment and plunge business confidence down, even the Liberal House leader has admitted on TV that the government cannot get anything built, despite years of defending Trudeau's actions. Canadians want to see projects growing and energy flowing, but until destructive Liberal laws like Bill C-69 are gone, it is just more empty promises.

If the Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe anything he says, then he will fully repeal anti-energy laws and get pipelines built.

One Canadian Economy Act

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 proves one thing for certain: The Liberals broke the system, and Canadians pay the price. An unprecedented $5 trillion of Canadian capital went south and into other countries, and they killed $670 billion in major natural resource projects that could have been built by Canadians with Canadian aluminum and steel for Canada's economic strength, self-reliance, security and unity. In five years alone, 16 major projects were sidelined because of them. It cost Canadians over $176 billion in lost nuclear, critical mineral mines, LNG terminals, pipelines, indigenous-led projects and energy corridors delayed or derailed by lawsuits, bureaucracy, delay and Liberal policies.

Imagine how powerful and self-reliant Canada would be today. Instead, Canada ranks last in the G7 for development, and the Liberals now scramble to patch what they themselves destroyed. Bill C-5 would not fix the fundamentals. It admits failure, with hundreds of thousands of Canadian job losses and more to come, unaffordable power and fuel, and skyrocketing costs of essentials. What the Liberals have to do is what the Conservatives said all along. They should scrap Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the federal industrial carbon tax, the Canadian oil and gas cap and all their other antidevelopment policies and laws.

Proponents today still face unclear rules, no concrete timelines, interference and limited transparency. As the transport minister said herself in committee, “we have come to a place in Canada where we have such a thicket of processes, rules and regulations...that we are unable to build with the alacrity that this moment in time requires.” It is not during just this current moment that major projects cannot get built in Canada with brisk and cheerful readiness. That has been the worsening reality of the last decade of Liberal antidevelopment laws, policies and messages. That dense, cumbersome thicket was created by the very same government that claims to be new while half the ministers are the old ones.

Conservatives offer real solutions: to cut red tape, gatekeepers and taxes; to create clear rules; to attract private investment; and to fast-track major projects for the benefit of all Canadians. The place the Liberals should start is with all the projects stuck in the federal queue right now, such as the Ksi Lisims LNG project, LNG Canada phase two and Bruce Power upgrades, and they should be looking at the dedicated west coast export pipeline to serve Asian energy demand that they killed 10 years ago and indigenous-backed roads to unlock the Ring of Fire. They are in the national interest, and they are waiting for a green light. They should be on the national interest list and fast-tracked yesterday.

Nevertheless, Conservatives worked in good faith with other opposition parties and with the Liberals to help improve Bill C-5, and here I want to thank the Conservative team for all its efforts. It will be up to the Liberals to deliver on their rhetoric and to keep up all their big, but vague, promises to Canadians. It will ultimately be up to Canadians to determine whether they do, and Conservatives will hold them accountable in the meantime.

Even now, Bill C-5 sets up a politically driven and determined process. Ministers will decide who goes ahead and who waits. They can even one day decide a project that they said was in the national interest earlier is no longer and remove it from the list or whatever ad hoc review a responsible minister determines. This is a problem I tried to fix: inherent uncertainty, huge powers behind closed doors and not a permanent fix or way to regulate and review projects in the sector most important to Canada's economy, imperative to help turn poverty into prosperity and to help lower emissions globally.

Bill C-5 blurs the lines, just as Bill C-69 did. What is worse is that the Liberals know it. At committee, the Canada-U.S. trade minister admitted, quote, whoever puts forward these projects, be they public, private, indigenous, provincial or municipal, does not have to go through an evaluation and approvals process that could take five to six years. He admits the Liberal system takes years and delays building. It is not clear whether projects that are actually in provincial or municipal jurisdiction may end up in the Bill C-5 queue for a federal review, which would be a similar overreach problem to that in Bill C-69. The mix of public and private infrastructure should cause taxpayers to take notice too, but again the obvious first step should be to fix that whole evaluations and approvals process the minister himself says is too long.

Proponents and the government itself are trapped by the red tape they imposed. Still, Bill C-5 does not fix it for everyone; it will fast-track a chosen few. At first, it did not even define “national interest”, which left every decision to the whims of cabinet and a lack of clarity for everyone involved, but Conservatives fought to require the government to define national interest with clear, specific criteria. We succeeded in adding that necessary clarity and structure to a process that started with none.

Conservatives also successfully incorporated the requirement of a public list of national interest projects, with timelines, estimated costs and rationale; application of the Conflict of Interest Act to officials and proponents to prevent abuse and prevent politically connected insiders from pursuing personal profit over the public interest behind closed doors; mandatory national security reviews for hostile regimes and state-owned investments into major national interest projects to combat foreign interference and economic imperialism from adversaries and to protect Canadian sovereignty and security; a requirement for the government to fully deliver on its mandatory duty to consult and a clear map for indigenous consultation, with public reporting to build trust, earn confidence and respect indigenous rights and title so that major projects can get to yes in a good way, with minimization of predictable court challenges and delays; and annual independent reviews of project progress so all Canadians can measure the Liberals by their actions, not just their words, and hold them accountable.

These amendments matter. They bring transparency, accountability, more certainty, more clarity and integrity to a bill that originally had none.

However, even with these improvements, major concerns remain. Bill C-5 would still allow ministers the power to remove a project from the national interest list at any time, without notice, reason or recourse. I proposed to remove the power to take projects off the list once they make the cut, because that uncertainty may continue to push investors and builders to other countries with clearer rules and more predictability, just as the Liberals have done to Canada for the past decade.

Since delay is death to major projects, Conservatives also aimed to give concrete timelines that do not actually exist in Bill C-5, despite all the Liberals' claims about a two-year process. I proposed a one-year deadline to issue permits once a project is designated; a 90-day limit for the Governor in Council, the cabinet, to make final decisions; and a requirement to prioritize private or public-private funding to protect taxpayers, to prioritize private funding. Canada should be a place where the private sector can take big risks and build big things on its time and on its dime, not where taxpayers have to be on the hook to get anything done.

The Liberals rejected those amendments.

Then I brought forward an amendment to apply the Conflict of Interest Act to enforce clearer safeguards to prevent corruption and block Liberals from stacking the deck in favour of their friends. This should not be necessary, of course, but we have a Prime Minister who hides his conflicts and where he pays his taxes, and who ran to make the company Brookfield invested in all the kinds of projects that Bill C-5 would fast-track, although under the Prime Minister, it mostly invested in the U.S. and abroad. This caused a flurry and a huddle among Liberal MPs, a couple of odd questions, and then the Liberals voted against it. Thanks to Conservative pressure and support from another opposition party, we forced the government to follow its own laws designed to prevent corruption and to put the public interest ahead of partisanship.

Conservatives also got limits put on cabinet to prevent it from exempting 15 foundational laws that no government should ever sidestep. All Canadians can be forgiven for wondering why the Liberals would have presented such a potentially significant law free from all of those laws in the first place. Conservatives pushed crucial amendments to ensure provincial consultation and to protect provincial jurisdiction and provincial decision-making power, because what the Liberals must show is that they can ensure big projects in federal jurisdiction can be built for Canada's economic strength, security and national unity, not meddle in others. They have to find a will, a spine, a set that they have failed to show in the past decade in order to enforce their own jurisdiction, to treat the national interest approvals according to the general advantage of Canada and to uphold legal and jurisdictional certainty so that proponents can build their projects when approvals face challenges and obstruction. Otherwise, this will all be big talk and a lot of delays without fixing the real problems, which are the antidevelopment laws and policies the Liberals themselves decided they needed this queue-jumping Bill C-5 to work around.

Conservatives' work continues today, with subamendments to clarify and fix flaws. We proposed a parliamentary committee with a nongovernment Chair. No government should judge its own actions. Democratic accountability anchors this principle, so the subamendment strengthens review with independent, balanced representation across parties. Canadians expect transparency, not spectacle. They expect real checks, not blanket approval.

Canada holds vast potential. Natural resources, energy and infrastructure sustain millions of jobs, fund public services, build communities and bolster global trade. Any bill for national development must reflect this reality and champion, not hinder, the sectors that drive prosperity. Canadians need an approach that does not curb ambition, repel investment or deny opportunity. Canada cannot tolerate a framework that casts resource development as a threat rather than a strength. Canada demands confidence, not caution, and momentum, not paralysis.

Conservatives champion responsible resource development, independent oversight and a united Canada, and our amendments to Bill C-5 uphold those values. Conservatives believe in strong paycheques and unity through opportunity, not division and double standards through federal overreach. We believe in reconciliaction through—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the member opposite's presentation, we heard him talk about Stephen Harper.

Stephen Harper was the prime minister more than a decade ago and had great success in developing Canada's economy. However, for the last 10 years, it was that member and his Liberal government, with Justin Trudeau, who introduced legislation that stymied the growth of Canada's economy and sent billions to dictatorships and to the United States. The member is here talking about a new government but also wants to talk about Justin Trudeau and his success.

Can the member stand up and say that he is proud of the work of Justin Trudeau and that he stands with Bill C-69 and the other job-killing bills that he passed with that government?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we can always tell the level of truthiness from the member's speech. The louder he gets, the less factual it is. So, we can certainly hear the level of truthiness, I guess, in today's speech.

The member talks about the one strong economy, and yet the government is a government that helped kill pipelines, energy east, which now leaves us bringing in $20 billion a year of oil from from Donald Trump's America instead of bringing it in from Alberta. The Liberals are keeping the unconstitutional Bill C-69, the “no new pipeline” ban; they are keeping the oil and gas cap, which is going to drive out many thousands of jobs; and the Quebec lieutenant says, “No more pipelines”. The resource minister cannot even say the word “pipeline” in the House. How is that building one strong Canada?

Natural Resources

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear to me that our effectiveness on this side of the floor has been significant.

On resource development, the Prime Minister made a revealing admission: He acknowledged that his government's own laws made it nearly impossible to build anything, and his solution is to give political exemptions to a few hand-picked projects. However, here is our question: If Liberals admit the laws do not work, why not repeal them altogether?

That is why Conservatives are calling for a true national sovereignty law, one that would repeal the disastrous Bill C-69, lift the tanker ban, scrap the energy cap and the job-killing industrial carbon tax, unlock our potential with shovel-ready zones, and provide clear permitting paths for mines, dams, nuclear plants, LNG facilities, pipelines and more. For the sake of our youth, we cannot wait.

We want a Canada that is self-reliant, sovereign and independent, and where workers take home powerful paycheques. What the member is saying on the other side of the floor reflects this side of the floor, and it is time to see the government actually do it.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, just two months ago, Canadians were fully tuned into an election campaign set against the backdrop of a tariff war and uncertainty about Canada's relationship with our largest trading partner. Looking for a solution, they saw a Liberal leader who claimed to be a fresh face, declaring that he would be different from the last decade of inaction on the nation-building projects that we desperately need. He said he would be a change in direction from the Liberal policies that made it impossible to get anything built in this country, the very policies that he championed as Trudeau's economic adviser.

Last night on Power Play, his House leader basically admitted that the previous system was too onerous and Canadians have voted them in to now do big projects, another admission of 10 years of intentional sabotage of our energy resources, which the world needs and asks for.

It is important to note that the roles of the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders need to be respected, and Canadian workers and investors need to be prioritized. I want to give a shout-out to the excellent work of the transport committee into the wee hours of this morning to agree to 13 significant amendments to Bill C-5 that provide oversight, access to information, conflict of interest compliance, timelines, consultations and protections that will increase the confidence of Canadians moving forward.

However, there is still a glaring failure that will continue to inhibit the restoration of our economy and growth to become the energy superpower that we must become. The “no new pipelines” law or Bill C-69, the shipping ban that applies only to vessels carrying oil and gas, the job-killing oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax, which will raise the cost of everything on all projects, remain in place.

Giving a free pass to a few federally controlled projects obviously fails to generate the private sector growth that we need to restore powerful paycheques that should stimulate individual prosperity in every corner of this country long into the future. Sixteen major energy projects have been delayed or denied under the Liberal government, projects that could have brought in over $176 billion. These are not merely devastating numbers; these are lost paycheques, lost opportunities and lost hope for thousands of Canadian families.

Canadians overwhelmingly rejected political parties at election time that, time and again, refused to recognize the vital importance of our resources and the prosperity they create. However, the Liberal Bill C-5 would marginally improve our ability to move projects forward, and yes, Conservatives will support any measure, no matter how small, if it would help one single project break ground.

So far, Bill C-5 is largely a symbolic move to make minor improvements to interprovincial trade and regulatory clarity. It would provide clearer or more streamlined regulatory guidance for designated resources and infrastructure projects, but the Prime Minister will need to do more to free his dream projects from the existing laws he helped create to choke development. With Bill C-5, the overall environment for free market private sector development remains restrictive.

Meanwhile, it was Conservatives who put forward the only credible plan to reignite energy investment in Canada. Canadians need to know that we are still committed to our plan: to repeal Liberal anti-development laws and regulations that have cost them half a trillion dollars in lost investment over the last lost decade; to build a national energy corridor to rapidly approve and build critical infrastructure and end our dependence on the Americans; to create one-and-done approvals to accelerate priority resource projects through one application and environmental review; to scrap the industrial carbon tax; and to lower costs for Canadians while boosting our economy and allowing our companies to become competitive again with the U.S. We would repeal Bill C-69 and the west coast tanker ban to build the infrastructure needed to export our clean, responsible energy overseas.

The Prime Minister is known to have a fondness for Conservative ideas, although he has watered each one down, with a minuscule tax cut, a very confined GST break and a sleight-of-hand huge increase in carbon tax measures. For the sake of our country, those who go to work every day to power Canada and the world and those who desperately want to do so, I implore the Liberal government to continue to follow our lead. If not, we are on the doorstep.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's number one export is oil. It is a source of prosperity and provides for health care, infrastructure and good-paying jobs, yet 10 years of Liberal anti-energy laws have kept pipelines from being built and have kept us dependent upon the U.S. markets, with laws like Bill C-69, the no new pipelines act; Bill C-48, the shipping ban; the energy production cap; and the industrial carbon tax. Energy companies will not build, because of these laws.

When will the Liberals finally end their war on Canadian energy and jobs?

Natural Resources

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canada should be expanding energy production, the Liberals are using their anti-energy laws to stop pipeline construction. Companies that have wanted to build have not because of these laws.

For 10 years now, the government has driven away investments and stranded our energy sector. It is time for anti-energy laws like Bill C-69, the shipping ban and the job-killing industrial carbon tax to go. If the Liberal government really wants to see energy projects built, will it finally do the right thing for Canadians and repeal its anti-energy laws?