Bill C-5

One Canadian Economy Act

An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act

Part 1 enacts the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act , which establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada. In the case of goods and services, that Act provides that a good or service that meets provincial or territorial requirements is considered to meet comparable federal requirements that pertain to the interprovincial movement of the good or provision of the service. In the case of workers, it provides for the recognition of provincial and territorial authorizations to practise occupations and for the issuance of comparable federal authorizations to holders of such provincial and territorial authorizations. It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Building Canada Act , which, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to add the name of a project and a brief description of it to a schedule to that Act if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the project is in the national interest;
(b) provides that determinations and findings that have to be made and opinions that have to be formed under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations for an authorization to be granted in respect of a project that is named in Schedule 1 to that Act are deemed to have been made or formed, as the case may be, in favour of permitting the project to be carried out in whole or in part;
(c) requires the minister who is designated under that Act to issue to the proponent of a project, if certain conditions are met, a document that sets out conditions that apply in respect of the project and that is deemed to be the authorizations, required under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations, that are specified in the document; and
(d) requires that minister, each year, to cause an independent review to be conducted of the status of each national interest project.

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the Liberal government does not believe in a first nations veto, but does this apply to the approval of an environmental certificate under the “one project, one review” model or even Bill C-5?

Opposition Motion—Food Inflation and Budgetary Policy

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I agree on one thing: that Canadians want a detailed plan. Canadians want us to really take our time to come up with a budget that is thoughtful and that responds to exactly what they sent us to the House to do, which was to make sure we can deliver on things like affordability. We have the plans to do that, and that is why we came back into government.

Can the member opposite confirm that he is going to support some of the bills that Canadians sent us to do in the House, like Bill C-5, which would remove the borders to make sure that we have one Canadian economy that works for all provinces?

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no way on God's green earth that Bill C-5 is ready for passage. Concerns and alarms have been raised by every environmental law association in Canada, by the Climate Action Network and now by the grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations. The Canadian Cancer Society has pointed out that the interprovincial barriers that come down may lead to a race to the bottom on health and environmental risks.

Will the government please redraft and reintroduce a bill that has a hope of passage?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the election six weeks behind us, let us look back at the Liberals' record on the environment.

The Liberals cancelled carbon pricing for consumers. They approved exploratory oil and gas drilling off the coast of Newfoundland. The Toronto Star revealed that they are thinking of cancelling the oil and gas emissions cap. Under Bill C-5, they want to allow fossil fuel projects to bypass environmental assessments. According to Ecojustice, never before in the history of modern environmental law has any legislation given this much power to the government.

How are the Liberals any different from Pierre Poilievre?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 is a response to an economic and trade crisis caused by our neighbours to the south. We sought a mandate during the election campaign, and this is how our government is responding to the tariff war, creating opportunities here at home and doing what we can to help our economy and protect jobs in Quebec, including jobs in the forestry, aluminum and steel sectors. This is our response to the economic crisis.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the second part of Bill C‑5 is called the building Canada act, but it might as well be called the destroying the planet act. Ottawa is giving itself the right to green-light fossil fuel projects by making orders, with no environmental assessment or consultation. It will decide unilaterally. Only once the decision has been made will it conduct bogus assessments and consult Quebec, the provinces and indigenous peoples on what is essentially a fait accompli.

Do the Liberals realize that this is a setback of historic proportions for both the environment and democracy?

Intergovernmental Relations

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5's measures to do away with trade barriers could move forward without any issue had the Liberals not decided the bill should also include provisions imposing dirty oil and gas pipelines on Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois is willing to work with the government on interprovincial trade, but it is a two-way street. If the Liberals want to work on trade, then we will be a partner, but if they want to use trade as a smokescreen for imposing energy projects, then we will stand in their way.

Will they accept our help and divide Bill C-5?

Opposition Motion—Food Inflation and Budgetary Policy

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to be able to stand here in this place, particularly on opposition days. I know the member for Winnipeg North enjoys it, and so do I. It is a good opportunity for us on this side of the House to critique and also perhaps to find fallacy in some of the arguments that are being put forward by opposition members.

I have had the opportunity to look into the opposition day motion, to read it in great detail and to be able to identify some pieces that I am going to pick up on here today. The first piece that is particularly important is around these words: “the Prime Minister...will be held to account.” That is in the opposition day motion from the Conservative Party. It is important to reflect upon what that actually means.

We have just gone through a federal election, and the Prime Minister won the referendum in this country about who was best to serve during a very uncertain time. The Canadian people are also the ones who ultimately hold to account all of us here in this place: our constituents. The 343 members of this House are tied directly to a constituency. They are responsible to constituents, to this country and its citizens. Ultimately, the Prime Minister and our members of Parliament are going to be tied on that side.

I do think it gives us an opportunity to reflect upon the work of the Prime Minister and the leadership of the Liberal government. We are now in week three of the House returning. It is important to reflect upon what has already been accomplished in two weeks and what is going to be accomplished in the days ahead.

First of all, the opposition day motion really talks about affordability. I did not hear, in any of the speeches from the opposition members, their support or their acknowledgement of the government's middle-income tax cut, notwithstanding the fact that they actually voted for it just a few days ago on the ways and means motion. This represents up to $840 a year for two-income families in this country. Twenty-two million Canadians will benefit from this policy. We have not heard one word about the work the government has done. I went back and reflected on Hansard this morning.

I give full credit to the opposition and, in fact, all of this House, for at least having enough foresight to support this type of measure. However, there is something concrete that this government is doing. It is moving quickly to be able to implement that by July 1.

We also need to talk about young people in this country and the fact that it is a difficult housing market. We should all acknowledge that, as parliamentarians. The government has already moved to remove the GST, which is the federal tax portion of home sales up to $1 million for first-time homebuyers.

I am in my mid-thirties. There are a lot of people in their late twenties, thirties and early forties who are trying to get into the housing market in this country. The government recognizes that. We are removing the GST; again, this is something that was supported by every member in this House on the ways and means motion. It is directly accountable to affordability, and it is a good measure.

I want to differentiate, though, between this side of the House and that side of the House. In our platform, our commitment, we actually proposed to remove the GST and, again, so did the Conservatives. However, the Conservatives proposed to pay for that by actually eliminating the supply side of the program. Not only are we getting rid of the taxation for those first-time homebuyers, but we have programs that are around supply. It is not a great mechanism if the supply side that is about building more homes in this country is actually used to pay for the tax cut that is proposed. That would actually limit the number of Canadians who could benefit, because that would not solve the supply side of the equation.

When I looked at the Conservative platform from just over a month ago, this is something that was actually problematic. They were going to use the supply-side funding, the supports to the municipalities, the supports for infrastructure upgrades in this country and affordable housing, to pay for that tax cut. We think it has to be both at the same time, the affordability measure, while we are also building more houses.

On the ways of means motion, we have also eliminated the consumer carbon tax. Again, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have highlighted that this had become a divisive policy in the country. There are ways to be able to fight climate change and reduce emissions in this country that do not involve a consumer carbon price.

I do need to talk about Bill C-5, which is the economic legislation that was tabled in this House on Friday to create one Canadian economy, not 13. There are federal barriers to interprovincial trade, and, of course, there are provincial and territorial barriers to interprovincial trade. The federal portion represents a small magnitude of what is left and remaining, but the government wants to show leadership and make sure that we are stepping up.

As a country, we are leaving approximately 200 billion dollars' worth of economic growth on the table every single year by not being able to remove these interprovincial trade barriers. They have been talked about for decades. Right now, we are in a political moment where I think there is the political wherewithal to actually advance these forward. I give full credit to the Minister of Internal Trade and Transport for her work to be able to advance them.

Again, we should not let the legislation languish. The Conservatives ran on these same types of policies in their platform. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues opposite about whether they will be stepping up to support the legislation quickly, because time is of the essence. They want to talk about the economy; they want to talk about affordability. They should be stepping up to support the legislation as soon as it gets up for debate here in this place.

We also need to build major national projects. This is part of Bill C-5, which is a commitment to identify projects of major national concern and opportunity, as well as to be able to advance them with the goal of having them permitted within two years. That is extremely important.

There are five criteria, five elements, that outline how these projects can ultimately be designated by the Privy Council. They have to be of major economic benefit to the country. They have to have the support of indigenous people. They have to be likely to be able to be advanced and to be accomplished. They have to set and establish Canada's autonomy, the ability for these projects to help our sovereignty in this country, especially with what we are seeing around the world. The last piece is that they have to be reconciled with the goals that this government has and our country has in terms of being able to reduce emissions. This is very crucial legislation to make sure that we can advance major projects. It is an initiative of the Prime Minister and the government. It is being introduced very quickly, in fact, within the first two weeks of being back.

The last thing I want to talk about in the three and a half minutes that I assume I have left, based on my timing, is defence. We hear members opposite on the importance of investing in defence. I want to remind Canadians at home of a few things. When Mr. Harper left office, defence spending under the Conservatives in 2015 had dipped below 1% of GDP. Every single year that the Liberal government was in power from 2015 to 2024, defence spending increased. Of course, that is never recognized on the side opposite, but I will go as far as to say that was the last government under former prime minister Trudeau, notwithstanding that these guys on that side want to pretend that it is the same government, which it is not. The current government is stepping up to meet our 2% spending target by the end of this fiscal year.

I look forward to help from the member from Manitoba in support of that. I know there are many members, but I hope the shadow critic for defence is actually pleased today that he is seeing public policy advance in this country about the spending that is necessary to make sure that Canada can have a strong, sovereign and reliable Canadian Armed Forces. We have to be standing here shoulder to shoulder with our Canadian Armed Forces to help support them.

The last piece I want to talk about is around the mention of food in the opposition day motion. Food is driven by our farmers in this country. It is driven by our agricultural producers. There are a few things we have to put on the record: The Conservatives voted against the national school food program in the last Parliament, which actually supports children in need in this country. They voted against it. They voted against the Canada child benefit, which helps put nutritious food on the table via extra money for parents. I have heard the stories in my own riding, and other members of Parliament have talked about this. They voted against those measures.

It is important to recognize that, as much as I have heard Conservative members stand up and talk about farmers over the last couple of hours in this debate, there was next to nothing in the Conservative election platform for farmers. I had the opportunity to debate the member for Foothills as part of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture debate. The member for Foothills is a great guy and a good parliamentarian. He had nothing to deal with, because Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party had nothing in their platform for farmers.

Mr. Speaker, you are from Wellington County in Ontario, the supply-managed capital of this country in terms of Ontario. There are lots of supply-managed farmers. Not one single mention in the platform of the Conservative Party actually said that members of the Conservative Party, if they formed government, would protect supply management.

If we are going to tie food policy to budgetary policy and policy in this place, I would like to actually see the Conservatives back up some of their words with actual substantive policy in their platform. Maybe for the next election, they will have something a bit more substantive. It is this party, this government, that actually has a plan to support Canadian farmers. I hope I get asked a question on it, because I would love to be able to elaborate.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Spadina—Harbourfront on her first remarks in this House of Commons. We share one thing in common: We are both former parliamentary interns. I welcome her to the House of Commons. I would encourage her to use her voice in this chamber. The Liberal Party has a tradition of allowing the member for Winnipeg North to disproportionately take up all the time. Therefore, I encourage her to stand so that we hear less from the member for Winnipeg North.

So far, the government has tabled Bill C-2, Bill C-3, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. Today we heard from the government that it is going to spend billions upon billions of dollars more on defence. We are also facing the reality that the Liberal budget misallocated over $20 billion in its fiscal projections on what the government would be collecting on tariffs.

Amidst all the uncertainty and the major defence spending commitments, why has the government not committed to tabling a budget this spring, in this session, to give Canadians clarity?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech in the House. I have not seen him often in the past, so I assume that he is a newly elected member.

The member told us that he wants to get moving and that he is part of a government that is taking action. I find that interesting to hear. It is basically true, and we can see that. The government has introduced a few bills so far. These are fairly substantial bills. What is more, the Liberals would like to see these bills passed by July 1. They have tabled a notice of ways and means, Bill C‑4 and Bill C‑5, among other things. The Liberals are certainly proactive when it comes to asking the House for things.

The problem is that the committees are not even sitting. This means that we cannot even analyze the bills that the Liberals want us to pass by July 1. On top of that, they are asking us for new spending. They are asking us for a lot of things, but there is no budget. Does the member opposite not feel that the Liberals are being somewhat inconsistent? Their actions do not seem to match their words.

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member said to call for an election. Well, we had one just four or five weeks ago. I do not know whether Canadians want to see another election, but we will continue, moving forward, being a little more optimistic in that the last election made a very strong statement in itself. Canadians do have an expectation that Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc members will work along with the government and support some critical initiatives.

There is a deadline with the piece of legislation. We need to get the legislation passed.

I would hope that my Conservative colleagues and friends across the way will give Canadians what they were asking for in the last election. The Prime Minister made the commitment to give them that tax break, along with 169 other Liberal members of Parliament. I believe that we can do that. There is no excuse for us not to do that.

This is a new Prime Minister and a new government. We can take a look at the legislation, where we highlight the benefits of Bill C-4. We can look at that legislative agenda. I want members to reflect on those three priority issues that I was able to comment on at the very beginning of the speech. We can think in terms of the one Canadian economy act, Bill C-5, which was just introduced today.

I reflect on what Canadians were telling us during the election. They are nervous. I would think everyone inside this chamber would recognize that Canadians would be better off if we were able to tackle those internal trade barriers. That could make a huge difference in terms of future taxation policy, as an example.

I am talking about billions of dollars. In fact, if we were to take down every possible barrier, it is estimated that it could be up to $200 billion. Imagine the economic and taxation benefits, in terms of potential future tax breaks. One never knows. We have to build that one economy.

Again, that is a commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians. It is an election-mandated commitment. Today, we receive another piece of legislation to deal with that commitment, just like Bill C-4, where we made that commitment. Think about it.

Just earlier this week, the Prime Minister was in discussions, meeting in Saskatchewan with all the different first ministers. Four or five days later, here we are, on the floor of the House of Commons, being provided the opportunity to once again take on an issue of great substance and ultimately bring Canada together in a stronger and healthier way.

We look towards the opposition members of all political stripes. We had political parties of all stripes in Saskatchewan. We have Canadians of all stripes, everyone we can possibly imagine, virtually coming together and wanting to see a higher sense of co-operation on these election platform issues. That is one of the reasons the Prime Minister today is the Prime Minister today: understanding and being able to explain to Canadians the types of actions that are necessary to manage the economy and to bring us through, over the next two, three or four years, whenever the next election might be.

I could talk about Bill C-2. Again, when thinking in terms of potential budget expenditures, securing our borders, is a priority piece of legislation. It is a priority because Canadians mandated it from the last election in a very clear fashion. It is not as though the election was a year ago. We are talking about six weeks or five weeks ago. April 28 was election day, where they raised the issues of one Canada, tax breaks and concern related to our borders, dealing with things like fentanyl and automobile theft. Again, we have legislation that is there to deal with that.

Members opposite talk about safety in communities. We are talking about 1,000 new RCMP officers. We are talking about 1,000 new Canada border control agents.

We can bundle them together, take a look at Bill C-2, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. All three of those bills come out of the election we just had.

Members opposite want to talk about if we believe it is out of our platform, then there should be no reason we do not support it. One would think. The point is that we are not here to serve a political party per se. We are here to serve our constituents and, collectively, all Canadians. This is something Canadians made very clear, crystal clear. They want the legislation to get through. We can do that.

It is amazing what one can do with unanimous consent when it comes to legislation. We have seen it in the past, and there is no reason we cannot see it this time around. Trust me, Madam Speaker, there will be a lot more legislation coming, and it will be thoroughly debated, no doubt. It will go through the committee process and so forth.

The three big items this week that have been introduced have been mandated by Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Opposition members have their choice. We live in a parliamentary system, and if they feel so inclined, they could prevent legislation from ultimately passing.

However, I can assure members opposite that I like to think I am a very opinionated person, and I will be sharing my thoughts and reflections on opposition parties and what they do over the next couple of weeks with the constituents I represent. I suspect the same will be duplicated throughout the country, because Canadians are watching. There is an expectation there.

It is not like we have a legislative agenda of 25 bills, not yet anyway. We have the priority legislation that is coming directly out of the election in the anticipation that, by putting it together, we would get a high sense of co-operation coming from all members of the House and ultimately be able to see it pass.

My ask of all members today is to take a look at it almost as a package deal where Canadians are very, very supportive. Nothing prevents members opposite from approaching the appropriate ministers if they have specific concerns. For example, yesterday, in talking about the border bill, Bill C-2, there was a lot of misinformation on the Conservatives' benches in regard to the mail system and how we are going to make Canadians safer by making changes in the legislation to enable law enforcement officers to get a warrant, in essence, to go through a letter, something they could never do before.

There is a lot to go through; I recognize that. However, I challenge members to raise concerns. Let us get legislation in a position where we could ultimately see it passed. This is what I am hoping to see and what I am going to continue to advocate for.

I did want to comment on housing, because housing is a very big issue and it is incorporated inside the legislation we are talking about today. I want to emphasize the program “build Canada homes”. I do believe the Prime Minister is very much focused on results. We will see tangible results, but we have to be prepared to see things ultimately passing through the House.

We will continue to work with different levels of government. Housing is a responsibility of the three different levels of government, not to mention the many different stakeholders that are out there. Ottawa will be there to support housing here in Canada.