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.

One Canadian Economy Act

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment to your position as well. It is great to see you in the chair.

Allow me, as well, to thank the great people of northwestern Ontario for sending me back to serve a third term in Parliament. This is my first opportunity to rise and give a full speech in the new Parliament. It remains a distinct honour and privilege to represent the people of Kenora—Kiiwetinoong in the House of Commons.

I do not have time to list everyone, but I will briefly thank my family, the volunteers, the campaign team and all the people who put in the time and effort to knock on doors, put up signs and do all the work to ensure that we had a successful outcome and that I could be back serving the people of northwestern Ontario.

To the matter at hand, Bill C-5, I would like to focus more specifically on the building Canada act within Bill C-5. Of course, it has been mentioned throughout the debate that it would require a new major projects office to render decisions within a two-year timeline. This is a good step. I am personally happy to see the government finally moving in this direction, but it is interesting to note that after 10 years of the Liberal government, we see it finally recognizing that things are not moving quickly enough and that major projects are being stalled across the country. I truly believe that, in bringing forward this legislation, the government is admitting to 10 years of failure, 10 years of roadblocks, 10 years of red tape and bureaucracy that have stalled projects, particularly when it comes to mining.

The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has admitted that it does take too long to get a mine approved in Canada. It is incredible to hear him say that. It is welcome news to hear him say that, to some extent, but again, the Liberal government has to recognize who has been in power and who is responsible for the fact that it takes too long to build a mine in Canada.

Today, the Mining Association of Canada, for that matter, notes that it takes 15 years, on average, to get a mine approved in Canada. I have seen other estimates that are higher, but the Mining Association of Canada says it takes 15 years. Obviously, that is an incredibly difficult situation for any investor, any proponent who wants to invest in our country, knowing that they are staring at, potentially, a 15-year or longer timeline.

This is of important note because Canada is, of course, a top mineral and resource producer. Resource development is critical to our economy, and not just to the great jobs it provides for people across northwestern Ontario and across all of Canada, the livelihoods and the paycheques that put food on tables, that put gas in the gas tanks of vehicles and that ensure that people can have the life they want to succeed and be prosperous. Mineral development is critical to our economic independence, truly now more than ever, coming out of the lost Liberal decade. It is important that we get our critical minerals to market. Over that decade, we have seen roadblocks, barriers and red tape, and now we have the worst growth in the G7.

The Liberals, obviously, talked a good game in the election. They said that it is time to build. They said a lot of the things that we have been saying for 10-plus years, and it is now time for them to step up and put it into action. A lot of Canadians want to be fair and want to give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe, but they really have a hard time believing that the Liberal government, after all it has done for 10 years, is actually going to step up to the plate and get our critical minerals developed.

The world needs more Canadian minerals. The International Energy Agency says that the demand for clean energy will require at least 71% more critical minerals than are currently being produced globally. In Canada, according to the Mining Association of Canada, many minerals are not even being produced at the level they were a decade ago. The demand is going up, and our production is going down. Who is stepping up to fill the void? It is other countries, such as China, where there are not as strong environmental regulations and not as strong protections for labour and for jobs. It is other countries, dictatorships, that are stepping up to fill the void that Canada is leaving behind.

I mentioned the economic independence angle of this as well. With the threats from the United States, the uncertainty from the United States that has been produced, now more than ever we know we have to move forward with these developments so we can bring home the paycheques, the wealth and the security to our own country.

These delays and red tape have held back the industry in Canada. There are actually 42 projects that are under federal assessment right now; 22 pertain to mining, nine are for transportation and four are in oil and gas. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has said there is a lack of investment certainty. Well, it is no wonder that after 10 years of his government there are 42 projects in a backlog currently under assessment. Twelve of those projects that are delayed are in northern Ontario, representing a combined 2,100 jobs and nearly $2.7 billion of investment, and I would like to touch on a couple of them, if I may.

One is the Crawford nickel project north of Timmins. It has been under assessment since 2022, and it would add 900 jobs if approved.

There is the Springpole gold project, in my riding, which is northeast of Red Lake. It has been under assessment for seven years and represents potentially $2 billion in GDP growth. It is an incredible opportunity for people in northwestern Ontario and for our economy as a whole if this government is able to get out of the way.

There is the Great Bear gold project southeast of Red Lake. There is a lot going on in Red Lake; it is very exciting, with lots of opportunity if we can capitalize on it. The Great Bear gold project has been under assessment since 2023.

The northern road link project, north of Thunder Bay, is a project proposed by Marten Falls and Webequie first nations. It has been under assessment since 2023 as well. There is a lot of opportunity for true partnership, I think, between the federal government and these two nations. It is really a corridor to prosperity not just for these two nations but for our country as a whole.

Again, these are all the positive things that could be happening, but 42 of these positive things, these projects, are being stalled. The government is bringing forward this bill now. It says it is going to get things moving in two years, but I say, why not start with the 42 projects that are currently under assessment? The Liberals are bringing forward this whole new regime, this whole new bureaucracy to, hopefully, move things forward within a two-year timeline. In many respects, I appreciate that step they are taking, but after the neglect, after the constant roadblocks for 10 years, why not go for the low-hanging fruit, these 42 projects that are there, ready and waiting for some certainty?

I will end by saying that Conservatives are happy if even one project gets accelerated, but more must be done. We definitely have to repeal Bill C-69, the "no new pipelines" bill; Bill C-50, the so-called Sustainable Jobs Act; and the industrial carbon tax as well, to help ensure we can make Canada more competitive and thrive in the current economic situation.

Conservatives are ready to work in this chamber with all parties to unlock the resources that we have across our country. We propose shovel-ready zones that provide permitting, clear conditions and boundaries to start building the pipelines, the mines and other major projects that we need to grow our economy, provide great jobs for people in northwestern Ontario and across the country, and of course, secure that economic independence and security that I spoke about previously. The resource sector certainly needs a break. It needs some relief and some support from the federal government, and Conservatives stand ready to get that done.

I look forward to any questions and comments from my colleagues.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his explanations.

I think that all the comments he made are covered in the bill. As for the decision-making process he was talking about, which is quite slow, the bill shortens that decision-making process with less delay and less waiting. When he talks about oil projects, it is very interesting, but there are other projects as well. We truly need to diversify our economy, and that is what we want to do by requiring only one review for each project.

I have a very simple question for my colleague. Given that the bill responds to all the concerns he raised in connection with one strong Canadian economy, would my colleague be prepared to work with his party to help this bill move forward as quickly as possible for the good of Canadians?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my comments, Conservatives are happy to see even one project accelerated. We think it is high time. It is long past time, after the government has dragged its feet, or I would say has put up barriers and distinct roadblocks purposely to stop development over the last 10 years.

In some respects, it is heartening to see that the Liberals are coming around. We are ready to work with them. We are ready to work with all parties in the House to ensure that we can unlock the vast potential of the resource sector across Canada, provide good jobs and provide more economic independence and security.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. Since he was reappointed to that committee, I will have the pleasure of working with him again.

I would like to know what questions he would ask first nations representatives if Bill C-5 were to be studied by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. Would he be interested in the issue of free, prior and informed consent? What responses would he expect from first nations representatives?

Does he think that Bill C‑5 has met the expectations of first nations?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate working with the member also, and I look forward to getting back to committee shortly and working with him.

The question was pretty hypothetical. I am not going to try to guess what a hypothetical individual may or may not say, but I will just comment with respect to some of the discussions I have heard and some of the things I have spoken about in my speech as well.

I talked about Marten Falls First Nation and Webequie First Nation, two communities that are hoping to see a major project move forward. They have been stalled in the government's current process, and they are looking to continue to move forward so they can bring prosperity to their communities and to the country. It is important that when we do get to committee, we hear all voices across the country and ensure that we are doing as much consultation as possible.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to specifically point out that I believe that the member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong was saying that the previous Trudeau government had failed, over 10 years, to create a regulatory environment where private sector capital could form and come together to build big projects, whether they be mines or other forms of infrastructure we need to be successful in our economy. Bill C-5 is literally an admission of that.

One of the fatal flaws of the legislation is that the Prime Minister would be giving a carve-out to each provincial premier, and saying that something is in the national interest is essentially saying that it overweighs provincial interests. Does the member believe, as I do, that by saying that a provincial premier has a veto, the legislation would essentially create, again, 13 economies and not one national economy?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is definitely a concern I have. Obviously, as Conservatives, we want to see one Canadian economy; we want to see the barriers broken down, but allowing any province to have a veto really flies in the face of that.

The government has talked a lot about the need for consensus to get major projects built, but it does not even know how it will actually define consensus. It is very concerning, and I definitely agree with the member and his sentiment in that.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to come back to Bill C-5, a bill that has been described by Ecojustice, a recognized Canadian environmental law organization, as giving the Prime Minister sweeping powers not seen before in the history of modern Canadian environmental law. What is being presented today as a bill the Liberals claim Canadians are asking for goes much further than anything announced during the election campaign.

The government is literally overhauling the project approval system. It is overhauling the environmental assessment system. It is completely changing the laws it put in place to protect the environment and the health of Canadians. It is doing all this without any mandate. In fact, during the election campaign, the Liberals did not show Canadians any clear proposal to scrap 13 environmental laws whose scope goes far beyond the environment. That legislation includes the Indian Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. It also includes seven regulations that the government is giving itself the right to completely ignore. It is giving itself the right to no longer have to obey laws that were democratically passed in the House.

Furthermore, how is this government currently operating? It is operating on a time allocation, at full speed. It is silencing parliamentarians to prevent us from even asking questions or hearing from witnesses. It is moving full speed ahead with a system that even Stephen Harper would have been embarrassed to introduce, a system that slavishly caves to the demands of the oil and gas sector to speed up approvals and remove barriers and environmental protections. That is what we are talking about here today.

We have a bill that has two parts. The Bloc Québécois was wise to ask that the two parts of this bill be split.

For the first part, on trade, we said that we would be able to reach a consensus, that some improvements are needed, but that it is reasonable. As the adults in the room, we figured that we would do our job as elected representatives. What Canadians expect from us is to take a close look at the bill, study it and ask questions properly, but that is not what is happening at all. We are not the only ones to notice this. First nations have spoken up and said that what is currently being presented is wrong. First nations have not been consulted. The government is rushing things through without any justification.

This is the beginning of a new term. There is currently no urgency. There are not even any projects on the table. No proponents have came forward with any projects.

The government is being utterly undemocratic. Despite what the government says, it is not true that the bill states that consensus will be required for these projects to move forward and for them to be recognized as projects of national interest. The Prime Minister said that there should certainly be consensus for the projects and no project would move forward if the provinces do not agree. In the bill, the word consensus is not mentioned once. Why did the Prime Minister not write very clearly that he would seek a consensus and ensure that the provinces and the first nations agree with the projects that will be identified as being in the national interest? He did not include that because he does not want that to happen. He intends to give himself superpowers that would allow him to impose pipeline projects despite the refusal of a province or a first nation. If the Prime Minister's intention is clear and it is to seek a consensus, then he needs to include that in his bill, but it is not there.

Then, it says that so-called projects of national interest will be selected by order. The government will decide by itself, as it sees fit, what projects will be of so-called national interest. There will be no mandatory criteria. The feds will decide on Quebec's behalf what the national projects will be, without any mandatory criteria. That is very clear.

Fighting climate change is one of the factors that may be considered, emphasis on “may”. In other words, the government may choose to disregard such factors completely, build oil pipelines, build gas pipelines, develop oil and gas expansion projects and forget about fighting climate change, as it has done since it came to power. That is what this bill will do.

People will say that the Bloc Québécois is fearmongering, but first nations have very clear concerns. That was the first nations national chief talking, after all. When I see that, I realize something is going on. The current member for Beaches—East York, a former Liberal cabinet minister, warned his colleagues about what he called economic growth at all costs during a debate on closure. He said that the government's response to Trump is leading it to sacrifice other important values. We are not the ones saying so; that was a Liberal member who is concerned that the government is moving forward without any justification by using undemocratic strategies such as closure.

As for the former environment minister and present Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, he refused today to say whether he supports the bill in its current form. Why? Because he wants amendments. The current minister refuses to say whether he supports the bill in its current form because amendments need to be made. What is the government doing? It is rushing through the consultation process, limiting the number of people who will be heard and limiting the number of questions. As a result, it is limiting opportunities to improve this bill. That is what democracy is for. Unfortunately, even within the government, I can see that there are concerns.

The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country is a third current government member who has expressed reservations. In his opinion, Bill C‑5 gives the government extraordinary powers because of the trade war, but it is giving itself powers for five years, and that is too long. Why have those powers for five years if the free trade agreement will be settled in two? There is nothing in this bill that justifies what the government is doing.

We have witnessed bouts of anti-democratic behaviour before. The Duplessis era, for example, was no stranger to scandals involving agreements made behind closed doors. This bill is the antithesis of transparency and slams the door shut on public participation.

Proponents are going to submit their projects to the government in private, and the government is going to come to terms with them. No information will be made public. Decisions will be made and projects will be designated as being in the national interest. They will be pre-approved before environmental assessments are even done. That is unheard of. Pre-approvals will be handed out before projects are even assessed. How will we know whether these projects will impact communities if the communities have no say? In this country's history of environmental assessments, the government has never before proposed taking such a huge step backwards. Breaking one's own laws for no reason is not only a serious mistake, it is something that everyone here should oppose. It is definitely cause for concern.

What is apparent, however, is that people are are blinded by oil, gas and the fantasy of infinite growth without a second thought for future or even current generations. That is what we are witnessing.

Naturally, the Bloc Québécois will be presenting a series of amendments. We are constructive, and we hope that the government and the opposition will be reasonable and responsible. Right now, the government is using a bazooka. This bill actually looks a lot like the War Measures Act in terms of the powers the government is giving itself.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, even though I do not agree with many of the points he raised today. I would like to set the record straight.

They said it will be done behind closed doors, so we really need to set the record straight so as not to mislead Canadians. Federal agencies will be working on these things. What my colleague forgot to mention is that the decision-making process will be streamlined. It will replace a process that was much slower, with long periods of inaction that resulted in lost opportunities. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, which is a federal agency, will be involved. There will be consultations with first nations, which is something my colleague definitely forgot to mention.

Our esteemed colleague talked mainly about oil and gas. We are losing other economic opportunities too. Would my colleague be willing to get back on track and work to bring back the aerospace industry—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I must give the member time to respond to the question.

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment made by my colleague from Bourassa. However, I would invite him to take another look at the bill. It is very clear that a proponent will be able to submit a project to the government and that the minister responsible will be able to issue an order declaring it a project of national interest without any information being made public, without any individual being informed and without any details about the project being disclosed.

This bill could even result in Canada's impact assessment law being thrown out so that the government would not have to comply with it. Why is the government putting this in a bill if it has no intention of throwing it out? I would be concerned if I were the member for Bourassa, and I look forward to speaking with him and explaining the extent of the democratic decline we are experiencing.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are at an interesting moment in Canadian politics, I think, because the Liberal government is trying to run against many things that were core to Justin Trudeau's governing agenda with the Liberal Party over the last 10 years. Part of the governing agenda under Prime Minister Trudeau was to set up an impossibly complex web of regulations and processes that made it very difficult for economic activity to proceed. In particular, it made it very difficult for major projects to move forward. Now we have the same people coming in and saying, “Oh my goodness. Since we have a problem with major projects not being able to proceed, we are going to pass a bill that will, in a limited and temporary way, allow some abridgement of that process for chosen projects.” Would it not be better to simply undo the mess Justin Trudeau created rather than abridging that process through this bill?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the question and I am not sure it was directed to me.

I think it is important to remember that the Earth is not flat and that climate change is real. Even if the Conservatives want to bury their heads in the sand and insist that it is not real, that there is nothing we need to do and that we can keep sidestepping environmental assessments, pre-approving projects and rolling out the red carpet for oil and gas companies, the reality of the forest fires that are currently ravaging western Canada will not change. The fact that last year was the most expensive year ever for Insurance Bureau of Canada insurance claims will not change.

We are going to be responsible. We are going to stand up to defend the people who elected us and who are asking us to protect the environment, who are asking us to grow the economy while protecting the environment, not destroying it.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for my hon. colleague from Repentigny because I know he is an expert in the environment.

What the consequences might this bill have for Quebec specifically? Could the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, which is highly respected and is a competitive advantage for Quebec projects, be tangibly threatened by this bill?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is clear in this bill is that despite what the Prime Minister says, Quebec's environmental sovereignty is not recognized. That threatens Quebec's power to say no to projects, to ensure that robust environmental assessments are done, and that is why we are asking for a real debate.

We are going to propose amendments. We hope that the Liberals and the Conservatives will be open to improving this bill, because in its current form, it is running us straight into a wall with respect to the environment.