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.

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague says he wants to be bold. I am waiting to see that. This legislation is not bold. If anything, it is underwhelming. The Liberals are over-promising and will under-deliver for Canadians. Absolutely, I think we have shown today that we are more than willing to work with the government to try to make this work because we want energy projects built. We want interprovincial barriers torn down, but this bill does not do it.

Once again, if the member is truly committed to working together on this, I would encourage him to listen to the proposals and amendments that are brought forward by the opposition to improve Bill C-5 to ensure it actually achieves what the Liberals are claiming it will.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, imagine that we are renovating an old house and we do not worry about the shoddy foundation, the rotted joists or floorboards and the rusted plumbing; we just hope that the new buyer does not notice that we have put some lipstick on a kind of an ugly pig. That is very similar to what the Liberals are trying to do now; they are trying to put forward legislation without dealing with the root cause of the rotten consequences of bad Liberal legislation that has gotten us into this position.

We all want the one Canadian economy act to pass. We want it to succeed. As Conservatives, we want pipelines built. We want energy projects completed. We want to see interprovincial trade barriers torn down and removed to grow Canada's economy.

It has been said many times that the most lucrative free trade Canada could have is the one we do not have within our own country, but as we walk through the process and as we listen to the Liberals, we can see that they slowly walk down on what they have promised and what they can actually deliver. Bill C-5 clearly shows that what they are promising is very different than what they would deliver.

Canadians will notice that the Liberals are building a house on a shoddy foundation, because nothing will get built unless they listen to the opposition members and make some amendments to the bill to ensure that we get things built, like repealing Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, eliminating the production cap on oil and gas and repealing the just transition, Bill C-50. Those are the things that would actually make an impactful difference to ensure that projects get built in Canada.

I want to give an example. The Prime Minister first came out saying that we are going to be building pipelines and national projects, and that we are going to have a free trade agreement in Canada by July 1. What is now being said is that we will have pipelines if there is national consensus, that the projects probably will not actually include pipelines, that provinces will have a veto and that we are not really going to have a free trade agreement by Canada Day because there is a difference between federal interprovincial free trade and provincial interprovincial free trade.

As we have a chance to look at Bill C-5, we see what is going on. I want to give an example. The Prime Minister keeps talking about how only national projects within the government's own interest would be approved, and that they must include decarbonisation of oil. What does decarbonisation of western Canadian oil and gas mean, compared especially to oil and gas imported into eastern Canada?

For example, in 2023, eastern Canada imported, on average, about 790,000 barrels of crude oil per day, valued at almost $20 billion. Those imports were from the United States, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia for the most part. By implying that western Canadian energy has to be decarbonised, it would have to be produced and transported under very different regulations, making it uncompetitive with what is imported into eastern Canada. I asked the government earlier if the same regulations and non-competitive rules would be imposed on energy imported into eastern Canada from places like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. It would not answer that question.

A renowned energy analyst, Dr. Ron Wallace said, “A federal regulatory requirement to decarbonize western Canadian crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil would render the one Canadian economy act moot and create two market realities in Canada—one that favours imports and that discourages, or at very least threatens the competitiveness of, Canadian oil export production.”

We cannot say we want to build projects and then put metrics and bars so high that Canadian energy projects and Canadian investment cannot actually reach that bar. We also cannot put the same regulatory burdens on energy imported to Canada. That is why it is so important to clear the deck. Repeal Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48 and repeal Bill C-50. Send a clear message to the private sector and foreign investment that Canada is truly open for business and that we are serious about getting these projects built.

The Supreme Court, as my colleague from Alberta said earlier, said that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional, yet the Liberals refuse to repeal it. As a result of Bill C-69, 16 major energy projects have been abandoned, worth more than $600 billion. Of the 18 LNG projects proposed by 2015, only one remains viable, LNG Canada, and that project is proceeding only because it was granted exemptions, by the Liberal government, to Bill C-69 and the carbon tax.

Meanwhile, some of our most trusted allies, Japan, Germany, Ukraine, Poland and South Korea, came to Canada asking for LNG. They want Canadian energy that is clean, affordable and sustainable, but nonsensical policies and a decision by the Liberal government forced those countries, our important allies, to go somewhere else for their energy. In fact it was one of the few times that I was embarrassed to be Canadian, when our allies, in their time of need, came to Canada for something that we could supply, that we desperately wanted to supply, and we turned our back on them.

However, those decisions by the previous Liberal government, from which most of the ministers are still on the front bench, have consequences. Germany even signed an agreement with Qatar. Japan signed an agreement with the United States, our biggest competitor when it comes to energy, and the value of that agreement is a 20-year LNG agreement with the United States valued at $200 billion annually, supporting 50,000 American jobs.

Those jobs should have been here in Canada, and that is just one LNG agreement. That $200 billion a year should have been building schools and hospitals here in Canada. The revenue from that one LNG agreement should have been helping pay down our debt and lower taxes for Canadians here in Canada, but instead that $200 billion is going to the United States.

While the Americans are creating jobs in the energy sector, the Liberals' ideological policies, by contrast, are killing jobs here at home. For example, the just transition bill, Bill C-50, will cost about 200,000 jobs in the energy sector, 290,000 jobs in agriculture and 1.4 million jobs in construction and building. In total, the just transition bill, Bill C-50, will cost Canada 2.7 million jobs.

The member for Winnipeg North asked me where I got that information from when I mentioned it last week. Well, a memo to the Minister of Natural Resources from his own department said, “The transition to a low-carbon economy will have an uneven impact across sectors, occupations and regions, and create significant labour...disruptions. We expect that larger-scale transformations will take place”. In agriculture, it will be about 292,000 workers; in energy, about 202,000 workers; in manufacturing, about 193,000 workers; in buildings and construction, 1.4 million workers; and transportation sectors, about 642,000 workers. That adds up to 13.5% of Canada's total workforce in all parts of the country. Can members imagine a piece of legislation that is going to impact 13.5% of Canada's workforce and perhaps put another 2.7 million Canadians out of work?

In contrast, the Americans are creating tens of thousands of jobs by unleashing their energy sector while we stand by and watch. In fact last fall, the Bank of Canada stated that we all see those signs that say, “In case of emergency, break glass”, and it is time for Canada to break the glass. We are saying that it is not time to take baby steps, which Bill C-5 would be doing; it is time to be bold. It is time to be disruptive. It is time to grab the opportunity that President Trump has given us.

At no time in my life as a legislator, as an elected official, have I seen Canada united, with 75% of Quebecers wanting an east-west pipeline. Canadians across this country want interprovincial trade barriers removed, and at one time they probably did not even realize what we were talking about, but they understand the impact and the potential that Canada has if we just grab it. We cannot just dance around it; we have to be bold. Bill C-5 needs to be improved, and hopefully the Liberals will listen to the opposition and take the steps that are needed to unleash Canada's potential.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I share those same concerns.

Last week in committee of the whole, the Minister of Energy said he has over 180 consultations with first nations over the next two weeks. How could he actually think that 180 over 14 days is meaningful consultation? The government is not a government that takes things seriously.

There are proven ways of getting things done with first nations. In my own private sector experience working with first nations in Treaty 6, 68 nations out of 72 signed up to buy a pipeline. That was driven by the first nations in the sector themselves, not with government interference from incompetence and with rhetorical talking points. There is a way, but I am not sure this is the way for Bill C-5.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

The idea behind Bill C‑5, a bill that the government is determined to pass quickly, is to allow certain major projects to move forward without too many checks and balances. That is a matter of deep concern to the Bloc Québécois because we believe that the environmental protections put in place over the years serve a purpose.

Why is the part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that deals with the disposal of pollutants in marine environments so unnecessary that it needs to be shoved aside to make way for major projects that suddenly need to get done at lightening speed?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, it is too cute by half to try to separate out the bigger picture with the smaller picture in Bill C-5 and what it attempts to do.

The Liberals cannot get this economy built by saying one thing today and then, in two to five years, taking it back, which Bill C-5 attempts to do. Repealing Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the industrial carbon tax, those are the real answers that last beyond two to five years, when the Liberal government may take the convenient action of just pulling Bill C-5 and having us back in uncertainty.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important for all of us to recognize that with Bill C-5, there is going to be an opportunity for it to go to committee.

I have posed this question to other Conservative members, and I appreciate how they are going to be voting. The question is this: Are there some specific changes they would like to see to Bill C-5? I do not necessarily want to hear about Bill C-69 or other pieces of legislation. What I want to know is whether the Conservative Party has any specific amendments that members would like to see to Bill C-5. I think it is a legitimate concern, and I am wondering if the member could provide an answer.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Foothills.

It is a privilege to rise in the House today on behalf of Edmonton Northwest, a constituency that borders the industrial heartland of Alberta, a constituency with some of Edmonton's largest industrial zoning, where men and women work on behalf of the energy sector.

Over the last 10 years of the lost Liberal decade, we have seen so much uncertainty. So much of our potential as a country continues to be held back. In a country with the highest amount of natural resources per capita in the world, Canada should not be in the position that we are in: the weakest economic growth among the G7; sending our allies, like Germany and Japan, to non-allied countries for energy; and sowing division amongst provinces, people and regions. As Conservatives, we want to unleash the power of our natural resource sector in partnership with all stakeholders, investors, indigenous peoples and all partnerships for the win-win benefit of all Canadians. Unleashing the economy needs to be measured and strategically done, rather than driven strictly by ideology.

One way of measuring success is by investment. Do the risk-takers feel comfortable enough to take that risk and make billions of dollars in investment? Well, it has been many years since investors felt safe to build large infrastructure in Canada. I personally was in a room hosted by British Columbia Investment Management Corporation just two short years ago, where a question was asked of those Canadian capital and investment bankers: What percentage of their portfolio was invested into Canadian infrastructure? The response was abysmal: maybe 5%, on average, with no outlook for growth.

Half a trillion dollars of investment has poured out of this country and into the United States over the last decade. This is due to Liberal anti-energy laws; the sowing of division in our country, pitting regions and provinces against each other; ignoring Alberta and the west in particular; and the villainization of our energy sector for all of Canada. It was not always this way, though. There was a time when provinces took the risk to invest in each other.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund invested hundreds of millions of dollars into other provinces. Albertans took the risk and made the prudent decision to invest in Canadian energy across provincial boundaries, such as in Hydro-Québec, the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Nova Scotia Power and the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal. Still today, multiple generations of Newfoundlanders come to Alberta to build the energy engine of Canada in Fort McMurray.

These investments showed we can work together in energy development. Albertans took the risk on other provinces, their resources and their people because we believed in Canada, and it was worth investing in. We believed it would make us a stronger country, and it did. Contrast that with today. When we ask Canadians what they think of Albertan resources and investing in each other, I do not think we get the same response.

Bill C-5 has all the usual talking points, and that is what this has proven to be. It is the same strategy of safe talking points and rhetoric. What are the measures of success beyond just the rhetoric of Bill C-5 and the legislation? What is the number of projects? How many of these would cross provincial boundaries? What is the investment number? What is the growth in GDP? What are the timelines? How much of that half-trillion dollars would come back to Canada from the United States? Is this tough talk against the States just that, just talk?

Sure, we hear the current government wants to get things built within two years, but it does not put that two-year timeline in its own legislation. I believe we can build at the speed of business. There is evidence. Our country has the capacity, the manpower and the ability to do right by our energy sectors. We have no shortage of experience as a country to get large projects done. Take, for example, the TransCanada natural gas pipeline. Back in the 1950s, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. built 3,500 kilometres of pipeline from Alberta to Montreal in just three short years. Still to this day, that Canadian, Albertan resource is heating homes in the east.

We proved as a country then that we can bypass the United States and build projects of national significance, proving that through natural resources, we are a strong, sovereign country. We can get things done. However, the ability to get things done has only worsened under the Liberals. They may tout Trans Mountain as a success, but the project, under them, went from a $5-billion investment to a $30-billion mismanaged project.

Is this the same level of excellence we should expect under Bill C-5 out of their new special projects office? The Liberals will also tout new investment of $5 billion into the national indigenous loan guarantee program, but I can tell members that $5 billion on a $30-billion mismanaged Liberal project would not cut it on Trans Mountain, and this same level of incompetence will not cut it on future projects.

Cedar LNG has raised the bar to 51% indigenous ownership on new projects, and this $5 billion that is supposed to highlight the new level of indigenous participation in this economy will certainly not meet that bar set by Cedar for the number of projects needed to make this country a superpower in energy. All of this uncertainty only undermines indigenous participation in the economy, sends mixed messages and sounds more like the usual reconciliation rhetoric. Uncertainty in indigenous spaces only means more uncertainty for Canadian investors and risk-takers to build the projects needed yesterday to make our country stronger internally and internationally.

Under this Liberal Bill C-5, the government will again have its own laws to make an excuse not to get things built. That is where the real answer lies. The answer needed to make Canada an economic superpower is to repeal Bill C-69, the no new pipeline law; repeal Bill C-48, the tanker ban; repeal the cap on Canadian energy; repeal the industrial carbon tax; repeal those things rather than being too cute by half with Bill C-5.

On this side of the House, we believe in building projects, as was proven and done in the past. What we do not believe in is more government rhetoric. We do not believe in playing politics of convenience with our national economy. On this side of the House, we do not agree with raising expectations of Canadians, the provinces, first nations and investors only to pull the rug out from under them, with excuses down the road from existing legislation. Every day that goes by, the Prime Minister and government are proving to be more of the same as the last Trudeau government, all about the photo op and not the result.

On this side of the House, we support building projects and unleashing the economy, and we will hold the Liberal government to account in that regard. On this side of the House, we believe in energy workers, and we believe in less red tape. We believe in legislation that would last beyond two to five years. We believe in government action that would last generations. We believe in energy security and going beyond photo ops. Canadians need affordable, reliable power and fuel so Canada can be self-reliant and achieve real economic independence from the U.S.

We believe in building things across this country for that mission. We believe in enhancing our ports for this cause. We believe in engaging indigenous nations effectively, rather than the same old talking points through third-party institutions. We believe in creating investment certainty for Canadian risk-takers. We as a country have done it in the past, and we can do it again with the repeal of Bill C-69 and those other laws.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what stands out for me in Bill C‑5 is two numbers. I used to be an accountant and a banker, so I really speak numbers. We are looking at a 7% increase in productivity. I have been in business for over 25 years, and there has always been a productivity problem.

By making decisions right here in our own country, with our provinces and with indigenous peoples, we can do things better. We can cut $200 billion in costs and increase our productivity free from the influence of other countries.

We are taking charge of our own fate. That is the main takeaway here.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for recognizing the consequences of bad Liberal policy, like low Canadian productivity, which is at 71% of that of the United States.

As part of Bill C-5, the Prime Minister said that only projects that are low-carbon or decarbonized would be approved. Canada imports about 500,000 barrels of oil from the United States, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria a year. Would those imports be under the auspices of the same new decarbonized or low-carbon rules and regulations that would be put on Canadian energy projects?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C‑5, the one Canadian economy act. This bill will enable us to remove federal barriers to the internal flow of goods and services and to labour mobility, while continuing to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians, their social and economic well-being and the environment. It will also help advance nation-building projects to produce and connect energy, goods and services across Canada's vast land mass and in global markets. This bill will help Canada become the strongest economy in the G7 and a global energy superpower.

To my mind, what defines an exceptional leader is first and foremost their ability to turn every crisis into an opportunity. With Bill C‑5, our Prime Minister is showing that he is of the same calibre as the people who built our country. The bill before us lays the foundation for our government's strategy, not only to address the threats posed by our neighbour to the south, but also to lead the way in building the Canadian economy of the future. That is why I will be supporting this bill.

No one in Canada wanted a trade war with the Americans, but that is where we are right now. Fortunately, with this bill, our government is demonstrating that it can turn this crisis into an opportunity. The people of Beauport—Limoilou and people across Canada expect their government to take swift and ambitious action to address the threats we are facing. No one has ever won a war, trade or otherwise, by improvising. What this bill proposes is a return to boldness.

Over the decades, we have come to believe that we have to make choices when it comes to our economic development and major projects. We could build well or build quickly. Over time, we have unfortunately sacrificed our efficiency and our boldness. It is important not to place all the blame on the current crisis or on the policies of our neighbour to the south. Canada built great things in the past, but it seems as though we have forgotten how to do so in recent decades.

In the United States, thinker Ezra Klein has just published Abundance, a book that is making waves and that offers solutions to help nations learn how to build effectively again. Across much of the western world, projects that took a few months to put together some decades ago are now taking years to get off the ground. In Canada, we can no longer afford to be overly cautious in the face of Trump's threats. I am proud that our government is taking action by proposing such a paradigm shift. This is a shift in mindset that goes far beyond partisan lines.

More than 60 years ago, we built the St. Lawrence Seaway in just a few years. It was a huge public infrastructure project that required an investment that only the Government of Canada could make. The St. Lawrence Seaway was not an expense; it was an investment. To this day, dozens of ships bound for or departing from the Great Lakes, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto or Montreal pass my riding every week. Over the decades, they have created so much wealth that the initial cost of the St. Lawrence Seaway now seems like a pittance in comparison. This is exactly the kind of major project that Bill C‑5 seeks to encourage. In response to Trump's threats, we will create economic activity by investing in projects like the St. Lawrence Seaway. We will create infrastructure that requires such significant investment that government commitment is virtually essential to its construction. What is more, this infrastructure will provide future generations with a stronger and more resilient economy.

The list of projects may be short, but the projects in question will be anything but minor. These will be projects that have the potential to truly redefine our nation's economic future in a lasting way. A trade war is a major threat to any economy but, on top of that, the current tariffs are hitting us at a time when the Canadian economy is fragile.

That is what the bill's second part, which is inseparable from building major projects, is going to address. It deals with removing trade barriers between provinces. Reducing interprovincial trade barriers and creating one economy out of 13 will have a significant impact on something that experts and economists are deeply concerned about: Canadian productivity.

That is why I will be supporting this bill. In 2022, Canadians produced 71% of what Americans did per hour. That productivity gap has widening for decades. It was an issue before the pandemic and Donald Trump's return. Now, I think it is a genuine national emergency. I will support this bill because it is a step in the right direction to address our major productivity problem. By removing interprovincial trade barriers, the bill will increase Canadian productivity by 7%. As I said earlier, by encouraging interprovincial trade, this bill is a key tool for fighting the President's tariffs, as well as creating a stronger and more resilient economy.

This bill is at the heart of what our Prime Minister promised Canadians during the election. We are walking the talk, as they say. We promised to find the opportunities hidden in the current crisis, and with this bill, the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy is giving us the tools to find the gold nuggets hidden in the mud of the trade war with the U.S. Those nuggets will make our economy stronger for future generations.

I also want to take this opportunity to highlight the exceptional work the Prime Minister is currently doing with provincial premiers and indigenous leaders. The government does not want to waste any time, but that does not mean it is willing to forego co-operation with the provinces and first peoples. Together, we will build the Canada of tomorrow. Together, we will build a stronger Canada.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I am disappointed that people keep repeating the same slogans about the closure motion. Bill C-5 very clearly indicates that for all projects, there will be consultations with the provinces and indigenous peoples, that we will work together to build consensus and that it is projects of national interest that will be implemented.

I think that Quebeckers and Canadians are looking forward to being proud of their country and seeing us move forward and develop projects. Quebeckers are not afraid of major projects. Just look at all the big dams they have built in the past few decades to be a leader in green energy and in contributing their efforts.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her election.

I listened to her speech and she seems enthusiastic about this bill. However, I would like to know what she thinks about the fact that her leader decided on many of the measures without adopting a budget. The defence budget is going up, spending is going up and taxes are going down, which seems somewhat inconsistent.

What is more, with Bill C-5, the Prime Minister is giving himself quite a few powers. He can decide what projects are of national interest and will not be subject to the applicable rules and criteria. All this authoritarianism is being implemented under a gag order without the bill being studied in committee, without us being able to hear from experts and study this bill.

I wonder what my colleague thinks of that, as a new member in the House of Commons. Does she think this is the right way to manage the affairs of a so-called democratic country?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about consensus. When I read Bill C-5 and then I see what the Prime Minister has said publicly, that each provincial premier will be able to have an effective veto, that to me does not say one national economy. It actually enshrines 13 different economies, based on the preferences of each premier.

Can the member opposite simply comment on the consensus part being a complete contradiction to the whole aim of the legislation for one national economy?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

I am a little confused today. I am a new MP, and I naively thought that the debates in the House were meant to advance better policies for all Quebeckers and Canadians. I have come to realize that, unfortunately, they are instead being used as an opportunity to doggedly criticize everything the government puts forward. Over here, we have Conservatives saying that the bill does not go far enough. They want carte blanche. Over there, we have Bloc members saying that we are going too far and that we, the Liberals, are the ones who want carte blanche. Maybe what that really means is that we have hit the sweet spot for getting projects of national interest off the ground while staying on track to meet our climate targets and fulfill our commitment and obligations to indigenous peoples.

What is clear is that Canada must assert itself as a confident and independent nation that is capable of building, producing and trading on its own terms. The trade actions taken by our closest partner have made it clear that our economic prosperity cannot depend on another country's decisions. We are at a critical juncture that will determine the economic future of our children and grandchildren. Now is the time to harness the potential of Canada's rich natural resources, industrial innovation and internal trade, and to invest in the infrastructure that we need to move forward. Now is the time to move forward with projects of national interest that will drive economic transformation.

We are ready to work with provincial, territorial, municipal and indigenous partners to eliminate delays and make responsible decisions. Bill C‑5 will help get projects built that will produce and transport energy, goods and services from coast to coast to coast. These projects will focus on infrastructure to facilitate trade and get goods and services to the people who need them.

For example, by speeding up project approvals, the legislation would help Canadian farmers who have state‑of‑the‑art equipment to irrigate their fields but lack the access roads and infrastructure needed to get their agricultural products to market. It will also help streamline regulatory processes and cut costs, which will leave more money in the pockets of hard‑working Canadian families, workers and communities. This is why we were elected: to make life more affordable.

Investing in infrastructure that facilitates trade and supports the movement of people and goods across Canada is good economic policy. That is why we have already invested in the national trade corridors fund, a $2.3‑billion fund to support infrastructure projects that improve the flow of goods and people within Canada and to international markets. It has already funded 81 projects and supported trade-enabling infrastructure projects, including access roads, railways, airports and ports, to ease bottlenecks and create more efficient and fluid trade corridors.

We also created the Canada public transit fund, which has an annual budget of $3 billion. These investments support the creation of transit-oriented communities to help attract investment, encourage housing construction near employment hubs and reduce traffic congestion. This can improve the flow of goods in and out of urban centres, particularly near ports, rail terminals and industrial areas. By supporting the development and modernization of public transit systems, this fund is helping to increase labour mobility and attract workers to urban centres, particularly to give them access to jobs in the logistics and service manufacturing sectors, promote trade, and contribute to economic growth.

There has never been a better time to diversify Canada's trade. As we have seen, we need to be able to rely on trustworthy partners. We need to be able to diversify our exports. Our entrepreneurs and businesses have been trying to do so for a long time, and they are finding it difficult. We all need to work together to help them out. The federal government's export diversification strategy already aims to expand Canada's reach by increasing overseas exports by 50% this year.

With a total of 15 free trade agreements with 49 countries, 36 foreign investment promotion and protection agreements and many other negotiations under way around the world, we are well positioned to strengthen our trade alliances and partnerships and create new ones to usher in a new era of economic growth and prosperity for Canadians.

Canada needs to build new critical infrastructure at a pace not seen in generations. We need to support the highways, railways, ports and airports that will power our economy. We need to support our farmers and get our agricultural products to market. We need to facilitate the flow of people, lumber and other goods while catalyzing the housing industry and building more homes faster. We also need to support Canada's many key industries, including both clean and conventional energy, and connect them to global markets. We did not ask to withdraw from our partnership with the United States, but the world is changing rapidly in the face of shifting geopolitics. If we want to be at the forefront, we need to build faster, smarter and with greater certainty. By becoming our own best ally, we can strengthen our national sovereignty and build the strongest economy in the G7.

Bill C-5 will let us seize the opportunity before us. It will let us invest in critical trade-related infrastructure that makes it easier for goods and people to move within Canada. It will streamline regulatory processes to speed up project approvals and reduce duplication and costs. It will improve trade corridors to diversify and strengthen Canada's trade relationships. It will also support labour mobility so that skilled workers can go where they are needed the most. That is what creating one Canadian economy is all about.

To grasp this opportunity, we need to use every tool at our disposal. Not only do we have everything the world needs, we have everything the world wants: Apart from our natural resources, the world needs Canadian values. These are not the values of a single party, but the values of Canadians and Quebeckers. These are the values at the core of Bill C‑5. We are a resilient people, unafraid of big projects. For proof, look anywhere in Canada, from Labrador to Nunavut to British Columbia.

This is a time to be proud. The fact is, Quebeckers and Canadians have spoken, and they are ready. They are ready for Canada to take its rightful place. They are ready to take charge and achieve great things. Bill C-5 offers our generation a unique opportunity to transform 13 economies into a single Canadian economy and make Canada the strongest economy in the G7. I truly hope that we can put partisanship aside, put the sound bites aside and get down to the real work of passing this bill.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he is aware of the dealings that took place between the Liberals and the Conservatives prior to the vote on Bill C‑5.

What did the Conservatives have to hand over to the Liberals to convince them to adopt their game plan, their agenda? What did the Liberals give the Conservatives in exchange for their support of this gag order that is interfering with democracy? These are the questions that keep me awake at night.

We exactly was said? Why are Quebec and Canada in this situation? How much did it cost?