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

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in this place and speak on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member of Parliament for Mirabel.

For the record, Bill C-5 is not perfect and, with respect, there are a few concerns I must point out. Let me start with the glaringly obvious. This bill is dubbed as the “one Canadian economy act”, and yet one of the first things we learn is that provinces and territories must provide consent on major projects. In other words, they have a veto. When a veto is provided to 13 different provinces and territories, we are not creating one Canadian economy. If anything, it is completely the opposite. In fact, a cynic might suggest that parts of this bill are designed to fail because the Prime Minister just spent an entire election making big promises that he had no intention of fulfilling. Why did he not get anything built, someone might ask the Prime Minister, who could then reply that there was no agreement on what to build. There, I submit by design, is a huge flaw within this bill.

However, we also know this bill contains other measures, in particular, under “Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada”, taking action or, in this case, legislatively proposing to take action on internal trade barriers, which have long been a passion of mine. I will expand on that point. When I was first elected to this place as someone totally wet behind the ears and a rookie MP, I was fortunate to draw quite highly in the private members' lottery order of precedence. Back in 2011, before the NDP was in power in British Columbia, tourism was not under attack and, indeed, there were a great many Canadian visitors in my riding every summer. Visiting local wineries, even in those days, with over 200 of them, has always been an immensely popular thing to do. Unfortunately, for visiting tourists from other provinces, they could not buy wine at those wineries to take back home with them. Why? Because there was an archaic Prohibition-era federal law that made it illegal to transport wine in person or to have it shipped across the provincial border.

Long-time members of this place might recall that I proposed a private member's bill to remedy this and create true free trade in Canadian wine, or so I had hoped. In those days, the NDP was our official opposition, hard to believe now, I know, which looked to slow down my bill. However, with the help of some Liberals, in particular, former Liberal MP Scott Brison, my bill was accelerated and passed in this House and the other place. Immediately after, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and British Columbia adopted the spirit of my bill; other provinces, not so much. One actually made regulatory changes to block what my bill had achieved.

I mention this because the Prime Minister has, unfortunately, made some outlandish statements, promises really. One was that there will be no interprovincial trade barriers by July 1. He also suggested that the elimination of these internal trade barriers will create another $200 billion of economic activity into our Canadian economy. I am not certain if this is wishful thinking or wilful political misrepresentation as a result of the recent election. Either way, I submit that expectations have been created that Bill C-5 will just not live up to.

This is not to say that the federal government should not do everything it can to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers. To some extent, this part of Bill C‑5 certainly does propose that, and that is why I am prepared to support it.

However, I must also return to the need for consensus found in the other part of Bill C-5. While the Liberal government will allow provinces and territories to veto major projects, we also have to recognize that many interprovincial trade barriers are erected in exactly the same way when one province essentially refuses to come to an agreement with the others. That is what frustrates me about this bill, because it contains a certain amount of double-talk and mixed messages.

I must also point out the obvious. Since 2015, the Liberals have passed several bills, such as Bill C‑69 and Bill C‑48, that have killed many Canadian energy projects. The Liberals know this, of course, but they are too arrogant to admit the obvious.

Fundamentally, the Liberals have created a regulatory environment that is no longer accessible to the private sector. Instead of fixing this, which would be the obvious solution, the Liberals created Bill C‑5, which proposes to circumvent and accelerate these regulatory hurdles through a new political process, subject to everyone's agreement, of course.

The exact mechanism of this political process is an enigma. I would like to point out that, in the past, our former Liberal government kept trying to try to buy jobs in the electric vehicle battery sector. As we now know, many of these investments, as the Liberals call them, completely failed, as is often the case when governments pick winners and losers by using politics as a criterion.

I also have to come back to another point that concerns me.

A few months ago, when campaigning to become the new Liberal leader, our now Prime Minister flew into Kelowna, and while there he told supporters that he would use emergency government powers to build energy projects. A part of that was the “build baby build” thing we heard so much during the election. Of course, in Bill C-5, there is no such language about using emergency government powers to build anything. Instead, what they say here is that there must be consensus, and of course, the NDP Premier of B.C., David Eby, has already said “no”. He will not support any new Canadian pipelines built with Canadian steel that export Canadian oil and gas by getting it to tidewater. He will, however, say yes to B.C. ferries built with Chinese steel by Chinese workers in a Chinese state-owned shipyard.

I mention that last part, because none of the Chinese steel is subject to any industrial carbon tax, unlike here in Canada, where Canadian steel remains subject to the Liberals' industrial carbon tax. On an interview with CTV Atlantic, the Prime Minister was clear that steel made by industry would be targeted for increases to offset his political 180° turn on the consumer carbon tax. This, of course, makes our Canadian steel more expensive and less competitive against Chinese steel with no carbon tax.

If this Liberal government was truly serious about building one Canadian economy, why ignore the fact that Canadian industries need a regulatory environment that is competitive and that creates incentives for investment that would lead to great-paying Canadian jobs?

Bill C‑5 completely misses the mark on those points. We are left with rather modest steps, despite huge promises to the contrary. At least those steps are in the right direction, but this bill could and should have been much more ambitious.

I would like to sincerely thank all members for taking the time to listen to my comments and concerns today.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously I do not agree with my colleague's interpretation of Bill C-5.

In my opinion, this is a very bad bill for all kinds of reasons. The fact that it gives the Prime Minister so much power to define what projects are of national interest bothers me a lot, but that is not what my question for him will be about.

I have always seen the Conservative Party, in this Parliament and in the past 10 years, as the official opposition to the government, opposing the denial of democracy through procedures that could sometimes be difficult to endure. The official opposition made sure that democracy was respected. Now, however, the official opposition, or so-called official opposition, plans to support the government, which means that the only opposition left in the House is coming from the 22 Bloc Québécois members, along with the handful of NDP members and the lone Green Party representative. In practice, that means the government has almost 400 members.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about that. Does he feel that his party has abandoned its role as the official opposition to support a bill that will be used for who knows what, or is he perfectly at ease with the idea of trampling on democracy to pass this bill?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes, she is a saint.

Madam Speaker, I thank her for being there with me and thank my three amazing children. I thank my father Kim, who has taught me a lot along the way, and my late mom Helen, who I know is looking down.

I also thank my amazing election team so much for all their hard work. I have one of the very best teams. Of course, I thank the amazing people of Essex, who have put their trust in me for a third term.

Over the last 10 years, we have been in this House time and time again facing legislation that stems from the Liberal anti-energy agenda, with bills like Bill C-49, Bill C-55 and, most notably, Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” act. Each of these bills sought to increase the regulatory framework around energy infrastructure, slowing and in many cases stopping development. Because of these policies, in January of this year, EnergyNow reported that since 2015, Canada has seen $670 billion in cancelled natural resource projects.

The cancellation of these projects has had devastating impacts on people's lives, with the Montreal Economic Institute projecting that the Liberal oil and gas cap could cause the loss of almost 113,000 jobs by 2040. How striking it is that a political party that has spent the last 10 years throwing up every barrier it could to the construction of new energy infrastructure should now find urgency in passing Bill C-5, a bill that would only slightly lower some of those barriers.

Across Canada, unemployment has risen to 7% according to the latest data released by Statistics Canada. Liberal job-killing policies have caused this crisis, and the refusal to repeal antidevelopment laws will only worsen it. Through this act, the government is telling Canadians that the very laws it has implemented have prevented them from getting jobs, prevented them from putting food on the table and prevented the economic development of our country.

How many more cancelled projects, layoffs and losses of income will we see before we say enough is enough? What we saw consistently from the last government was sweeping plans and grand promises, but no action, and here we go again.

On June 9, the hon. government House leader said, “Bill C-5 is a response to an economic and trade crisis caused by our neighbours to the south.” He is right. Our lack of growth in the energy sector has created a reliance resulting in the United States receiving 96% of our oil exports in 2023. It is now the number one exporter of LNG in the world, a position that should and could have been held by Canada.

If the Liberals had focused on bringing energy products into Canada over the last 10 years instead of halting their development, Canadians would not be losing their jobs and we would not be stuck playing a frantic defence. In the past five years, proposals have come from almost a dozen countries that have wanted to purchase or partner with Canada's LNG production, such as Germany and Poland in 2022, Japan and South Korea in 2023, and Greece, the Philippines and Taiwan in 2024.

The Liberals have had the last 10 years to strengthen our workforce and economic independence and diversify our LNG. Instead, they have left Canada without the option and infrastructure to stand on our own two feet. Canada should be strong and independent, not scrambling to pass legislation because the government realized it has been making serious mistakes.

Bill C-5 promises to speed up the approval process and remove regulatory barriers. If that is the goal, why does the government want to create an entirely new office to oversee each project proposal? This regulatory body has not been identified, may take several months to establish and staff, has an unknown set of criteria by which to assess projects and does not have a designated minister.

As it stands, the building Canada act may at best reduce the number of months that a proposed project would spend before the new regulatory body. To build a major project today, whether it is a pipeline, a mine, an electricity transmission line or any other project, takes several years, and there is good reason for that. Those years are filled with advanced planning, engineering, road evaluation and consultations with landowners and indigenous communities, and then they take several months to build.

Shortening the regulatory reviews, while desirable, will not change that, nor will it prevent groups that oppose such projects from using the courts to hamper and delay their development. Those legal delays will undoubtedly drag on, and we will see exactly what we have seen over the past 10 years: Projects will get cancelled, and hard-working Canadians will lose their livelihoods because of the government's lack of planning.

What happens when the approval of important projects is sped up without proper consideration is that mistakes are made, details are overlooked and corners get cut. TD forecasts that there will be 100,000 job losses by the third quarter of this year. Canada cannot afford this lack of concrete planning or commitments. More cancelled and delayed projects will lead to more Canadians who cannot provide for their families.

Several areas of the bill are vague and noncommittal. For example, Bill C-5 fails to outline clear criteria for what is considered a national interest project, and hidden away at the end of the bill, it states that cabinet has the power to exempt national interest projects from federal laws. The government is handing itself unchecked power to exempt projects it deems important and telling us not to question it, without committing to repealing the laws that have created these problems in the first place.

Additionally, the bill fails to provide concrete timelines for the new and improved approvals process. The Liberals have merely stated that the goal for this bill is to shorten approval timelines from five years to two, but conveniently have not committed to that timeline in the text of the bill.

Not only will this bill make little to no real impact on the timeline of energy infrastructure projects, but the Prime Minister has also said the premiers will have a veto on resource projects and pipelines, which will certainly cause delays and hinder our fight to protect Canadian sovereignty. At best, moving projects from concepts to useful and operating infrastructure will still take several years and billions of dollars. What is the justification for ramming this bill through the House without proper examination and debate to ensure it will have the same benefits the government claims?

This cabinet is effectively the same as the last one. For the past 10 years, it has failed to further Canada's interests, increase Canadian jobs, grow Canada's economy or strengthen Canada's sovereignty. As my colleague, the hon. member for Lakeland, pointed out on May 28, “the Liberals [have] killed 16 major energy projects” in the last five years. She went on to ask why we should trust what they will be able to get done this time around.

If the government wants to enact real change and speed up nation-building projects, then it should repeal its antidevelopment laws that block those projects so we can strengthen the jobs in our oil and gas sector. Furthermore, it should repeal the industrial carbon tax, which is financially strangling our farmers and steel, aluminum and natural gas producers, and causing companies to give up their operations in Canada and move to other countries.

Make no mistake: Conservatives want to see streamlined project development without the piles of red tape that have built up over the past decade. We want to work with the government to make sure that happens. Conservatives have been consistent in our support for natural energy infrastructure, warning the Liberals for years about the economic necessity of these projects. However, that does not mean we should not do our due diligence and take the time to properly consider this legislation.

In its current state, Bill C-5 does not provide real solutions. The crisis caused by the Liberals has robbed Canadians of jobs and stability. Bill C-5 also has no impact on the laws causing these issues, the laws that have given us skyrocketing unemployment and an oil and gas sector that is far behind our competitors'.

Canadians deserve economic stability, but they also deserve transparency and clarity. I challenge the government to repeal its antipipeline and antidevelopment laws and allow the House the time to flesh out the details of this bill to give Canadians concrete timelines and a set list of criteria so it provides real, tangible benefits to Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague. In our opinion, Bill C-5 is a major democratic setback. It is also a step backwards in our environmental protections.

My colleague must know that supporting the closure motion and eventually the bill will not just put this on the Liberals' record; it will also be on the Conservatives' record.

What will Bill C‑5 do? When a major project is proposed and is considered to be in the national interest, some legislation will no longer need to be circumvented, such as the Fisheries Act.

What is the purpose of the Fisheries Act? Section 2.1 of that act states that the purpose of the act is to provide a framework for the management and control of fisheries, as well as the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.

Why does my colleague think that a major project deemed in the national interest must necessarily be carried out at the expense of preserving fish?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has not. Frankly, in his riding, the Filipinos are very upset with him because he made that promise, and he cannot deliver on it.

Conservatives proposed a blue seal program that would allow health care workers to transfer their skills easily across provinces and the establishment of a national competency body, similar to the Red Seal programs for trade. Bill C-5 does not solve any of these issues, even though every politician in the House of Commons knows it was something raised at the doorstep every day during the election.

With my limited time here today, I will just quickly touch upon part 2 of the bill, the building Canada act, which gives the federal government power to designate and fast-track so-called national interest projects. Earlier this morning, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley outlined some of the major flaws with this aspect of the bill, and it largely related to the duty to consult.

British Columbia has a higher proportion of first nations than any other province in the country. First nations in British Columbia want to see major projects built. They want to partner with the federal government, but they see parts of this legislation as a poison pill. It seems to them that the Prime Minister is seeking to usurp their constitutionally given rights to be consulted and to in work with the government for economic reconciliation. The bill could have clarified those points, not in the preamble, but in the body of the text, to give first nations the authority and respect they deserve on major projects going forward. That was not included in the bill.

On major projects, this bill would create a new industry for consultants. Unlike Bill C-69, which has effectively shut down all major resource projects in Canada, this new bill, and I am voting for it, so I am not completely against it, but I am outlining the criticisms, would allow proponents to go directly to the Prime Minister's office without checks and balances. In some cases, sure, that would be okay, but we do not know what the Prime Minister intends, what his criteria are going to be and how he is going to be transparent with all of Canada about what projects he is picking and choosing. I do not want to live in a country where one man gets to pick winners and losers. I want a country where every project proponent sees a pathway to a yes or no answer with a reasonable amount of investment dollars put forward. That is not too much to ask. Other countries with our resources already have similar processes. We used to have it in Canada. We are asking for that to be returned.

As we are in the period of time to debate this bill only today in the House of Commons because of a closure motion, I will have to keep my remarks short. I thank again the people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford for putting their trust in me. It is a true honour.

I look forward to studying this bill in more detail.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I have spoken many times in committee of the whole, while presenting petitions and when asking questions during question period, so far in this parliamentary session, I have not participated in Government Orders. To that end, I would like to thank the voters in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford for giving me an overwhelming majority to represent them in the people's House of Commons in the 45th Parliament.

It is the honour of my professional career to be a hometown boy representing his community. I thank the people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. I thank my family for supporting me. I do not take this job lightly, and I will work tirelessly on their behalf.

This was a different election. To go back a few months, former prime minister Trudeau resigned and the Prime Minister was elected, by Liberal voters, to lead the Liberal Party of Canada. In April, the Liberal Party put forward a platform called “Canada Strong”, a plan to unite, secure, protect, build. The language in this platform is very important. In fact, it led to the Liberals winning the most seats in the House of Commons again. On page one, it states:

America’s unjustified and reckless trade war threatens Canadian jobs, businesses, and our way of life. They are trying to weaken us so they can own us. In the face of this threat, we have a plan to build the strongest economy in the G7.

I outline that point because there was a lot of fear in this election, and rightfully so, about what Canada's relationship would be like with the United States. It came up at the doorstep every day, especially, I will note, among baby boomers. The first page of the Liberal platform goes on to state that a government, led by the current Prime Minister, “has a plan to remove barriers to internal trade.” It goes on to states that the Liberals “will reduce internal trade costs by up to 15% and expand our economy by up to $200 billion, that is up to $5,000 for every Canadian.”

In British Columbia, this was talked about a lot. It was actually a platform commitment to remove internal trade barriers to have free trade in Canada. It was a platform commitment shared with that of the Conservative Party of Canada. This brings us to the fourth sitting week of Parliament since the election, and today we are debating Bill C-5, a free trade and labour mobility act. However, when we look at the bill, there is a problem because the rhetoric in the Liberal platform does not match the reality in the legislation before us today. In fact, the bill would really do nothing to meet the expectations of what Canadians expected from Parliament. I will explain.

Bill C-5 does not address any of the key promises made by the Liberal platform. It would not enforce mutual recognition across provinces and territories. It does not address and would not dismantle provincial trade barriers. It does not include any binding timelines or enforcement mechanisms. It does not establish “buy Canadian” procurement standards. It would not fund or prioritize infrastructure needed for free trade between the provinces and territories. It would not protect or support Canadian industries under foreign trade attacks. It would not create the promised centralized one window for major project approvals. I will note, as a British Columbian, that it would not remove the internal trade barriers between provinces and territories for B.C. farmers, such as our wine growers, to sell their products, barrier-free, across our great nation, which needs to be pointed out.

As I mentioned, we have no idea what the economic consequences of this bill would be. The Liberal platform, as I just outlined, said that, by breaking down internal trade barriers before July 1, there would be massive economic development in Canada and $5,000 more in the pocket of every Canadian. I am stating this point again because I do not believe that is the case. I look forward to the Parliamentary Budget Officer giving a clear breakdown on what the economic positives or negatives of this bill will have on Canada's economy.

Another massive and glaring omission in Bill C-5 is its failure to address another key thing Canadians wanted this election, and that was credential recognition for health care workers. In my province, we are facing a health care crisis. In fact, I receive more calls about hospital closures than almost any other subject in my constituency office. I have had constituents die because the health care centre in one town is too far away from the hospital where they could have received the medical treatment that used to be available in their community. There is broad consensus in Canada that we need credential recognition, that we need to allow the foreign-trained nurses and doctors who we permitted into Canada under our immigration point systems to do exactly what they intended to do when they got to Canada.

Government Priorities

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure: The Liberals' national interest is not in the interest of the planet or future generations. In less than three weeks, they have gone from transport electrification to “Drill, baby, drill”. The Prime Minister has gone from Canada standing strong against Donald Trump to sidelining Quebec and forcing pipelines on it without debate, serious study or expert witnesses explaining the implications of Bill C‑5.

The Prime Minister obviously has no respect for the work of elected officials. He has clearly proven that with his gag order. When will he finally understand that this is a democracy?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-5, the government is not only muzzling the House, it is also muzzling all forms of opposition outside the House in the name of the so-called national interest. It is silencing all those who think that our clean drinking water could be threatened by dirty oil pipelines crossing our lakes and rivers, including the St. Lawrence. It is silencing all those who are concerned about our farmland and forests. It is silencing the people, the Quebec National Assembly and the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement.

Why is it that, for the federal government, building Canada always means weakening Quebec?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 has given rise to a Conservative-Liberal coalition working for the oil companies.

After years of saying that the Liberals are the devil incarnate, the Conservatives are now eating out of their hands. They are willing to pass Liberal bills. They are even prepared to adopt Liberal gag orders. They are prepared to do anything as long as it is in the interest of the oil companies, but not in the interest of Quebeckers. Quebec did not vote for this. Why did the Liberals lie to Quebeckers during the election and not tell them that they were going to govern with the Conservatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives want to pass a Liberal bill under a gag order and Danielle Smith supports the federal Liberals in Ottawa, it is clear that the oil companies are the ones who are really behind Bill C‑5.

Quebeckers did not vote Liberal to have Conservative policies that benefit oil companies and Danielle Smith imposed on them under a gag order. If Quebeckers had wanted Pierre Poilievre, they would have voted for him. Do the Liberals realize that they are betraying Quebeckers?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister thinks that he is Pierre Poilievre.

He wants to impose closure on Bill C‑5 so that he can make all the decisions about energy projects. He wants to be able to unilaterally decide, by executive order, which projects will go ahead in the national interest, and he wants to be able to unilaterally define what the national interest is based on his personal opinion. He wants to impose pipelines on Quebec, and he wants to do it without any debate or studies. Never in his wildest dreams did Pierre Poilievre consider doing such a thing. Will the Prime Minister stop imitating him and withdraw his closure motion?

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that we just finished an election campaign.

On page one of our election platform, it says that we are going to pass a one Canadian economy bill, which will make it easier to get major projects built. This is a fact. Unions, the business community, the Premier of Quebec and all the premiers of Canada support it.

Let us move forward with Bill C‑5. Let us get the Canadian economy rolling.

Indigenous Affairs

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following text:]

1948ᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᑦᑎᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᐸᓂᖓᔭ’ᓈᖅ 12ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᑦᑎᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ Joan Scottieᒥᒃ Joan ᑎᑎᕋᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᔪᖅ “ᑕᒪᐃᑦᑎᓐᓄ ᐃᓅᓛᖅᐳᖓ − ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎ ᓲᖑᓴᕐᓂᖅ, ᓄᖑᓱᐃᑦᑐᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᑦᑕᐃᓕᓂᖏᑦ”

Joan ᓴᖏᓂᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᑐᒃᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔪᒃᓯᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᕗᖓ ᐸᓂᖓᔭ’ᓈᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑏᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᑦᑕᐃᓕᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᕗᑦ ᓱᕋᒃᑕᐅᔪᒃᓴᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋ

ᐊᑏ ᐱᔪᒃᓯᓂᐊᖅᐳᒍ ᐸᓂᖓᔭ’ᓈᖅᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓗᑕ ᓄᓇᖅᐳᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓗᑎᒍ

[Inuktitut text interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, when she was born in 1948, her parents named her Paningaya’naaq. By the time she was 12 years old, she was given the name Joan Scottie. Joan has written a book about her life, entitled I Will Live for Both of Us: A History of Colonialism, Uranium Mining, and Inuit Resistance.

Joan has the strength to protect the land and the caribou. I am inspired by Paningaya'naaq and hope Inuit and indigenous peoples will show their resistance in what will be challenging days. Our rights are on the verge of being infringed by Bill C-5.

Let us be moved by Paningaya'naaq and do what we can to protect our lands.

[English]

Consideration of Government Business No. 1

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

I just want to give my thanks to my neighbours in Beaches—East York. Trust is everything in our democracy. It means a lot to be given their trust, and I am going to work hard to earn it.

Against the economic threat posed by President Trump, Canadian politicians have rightly renewed calls to build up our country. I am one of them. It is a nation-building moment. A strong and resilient domestic economy is a priority. Of course, it should be. To that end, we should remove unreasonable barriers to economic growth. If a rule does not contribute to the public interest, or if its negative cost is disproportionate to any positive contribution, we should do away with it, but that does not mean we should pursue economic growth no matter the cost.

Depending on the project, there may be competing public interest considerations, including biodiversity and habitat protection, indigenous rights, climate change, long-term cost-effectiveness, democratic participation and more. However, under the guise of responding to the threat posed by Trump, we are sacrificing other important values. We are not thinking about unintended consequences, and we are actively undermining our parliamentary democracy. Consider the case of two bills, Doug Ford's Bill 5 and the federal government's Bill C-5.

Ontario's Bill 5 became law last week. It not only gutted habitat protection, just to start, but also enacted the Special Economic Zones Act to give the government, unnecessarily and disproportionately, unchecked power. Effectively, the government can now designate special economic zones and then exempt or alter any provincial or municipal law that would apply to a company or project within those zones. Ecojustice rightly called it a threat to democracy. Worse, the Ford government shut down democratic debate, curtailed committee scrutiny, and jammed the bill through the legislature. Now, that may be par for the course for Doug Ford. That is fair.

However, Ecojustice has also called the federal government's bill, Bill C-5, a threat to democracy, and no Liberal government should welcome that accusation. Worse, with Bill C-5, in a Bill 5 déjà vu, the federal government is proposing to shut down democratic debate, curtail committee scrutiny and jam the bill through the legislature. It would all actually make Harper blush. Liberals would rightly scream if a federal Conservative government attempted the same.

While they share similar goals, and yes, they suffer some similar defects, the federal Bill C-5 is not exactly the same as Ford's. Part 1 of our legislation, the free trade and labour mobility act, usefully aims to harmonize federal and provincial rules where reasonably possible. The idea is simple, to avoid duplicative regulation of goods, services and labour where federal and provincial rules are comparable. Yes, of course, the devil is in the details of assessing what comparable means, but it is a welcome move.

The problems with Bill C-5 lie in part 2, the building Canada act. Its purpose is clear, to get national interest projects built more quickly. This is so far, so good. The proposed law would streamline authorizations at the same time that it emphasizes the importance of climate action and indigenous rights. This is a huge and positive distinction from Ford's Bill 5. At no point does Ford's bill even mention climate change or the need to consult with affected indigenous rights holders. However, despite its promise, the proposed building Canada act has two major faults. First, it would give the government unfettered discretion in designating national interest projects, and second, similar to Ford's Bill 5, it would give the government unchecked power to exclude or alter any law that would otherwise apply to such a project.

The Minister of Natural Resources set the stage for Bill C-5 in a May 23 speech calling for a renewed spirit of building by reframing the national conversation. There has been no more asking about why we should build. The real question is, how do we get it done? In my view, it would be wise of the government to take its own advice when it comes to Bill C-5. Rather than defending the “why”, or the idea of the bill, we should refocus our attention on the “how”, or how we pass it. In other words, we should improve the bill and respect democratic participation as we do so.

First, we should welcome greater parliamentary and civil society scrutiny. The government's proposed guillotine motion seeks to limit parliamentary debate at every stage of the bill. More concerning, it will jam all expert and public testimony, and all committee scrutiny, into less than two days. What is this for? Members can consider that Parliament is not currently scheduled to sit between June 20 and September 15. We are rushing legislation through Parliament under the auspices of an urgent threat, but we are not willing to put Parliament to work for what, an additional week, to get things right?

The debate on amendments does not need to be rushed. We could easily extend committee hearings by an additional week, provide resources for the committee to sit every day and engage in a more thoughtful process to hear from experts, improve the bill and pass it through the House by Canada Day.

Beyond improving the process, we should also fix the substance of Bill C-5.

First, clause 5 currently would give the government unfettered discretion to designate national interest projects. There is a list of specified factors at subclause 5(6) that the government may consider, including the interests of indigenous people, as well as clean growth and meeting Canada's subjects with respect to climate change. That is all good. However, with the bill as currently drafted, the government would not need to consider any or all of these factors. We can and should change that. We could either mandate that the government consider these public interest factors, or we could require that national interest projects not be inconsistent with them. Simply, Parliament should be more prescriptive than including factors as mere examples.

Second, clause 22 would empower the government to exclude the operation of any law from a project it has deemed to be in the national interest. Combined with the unfettered power to designate such projects, it would effectively do away with Parliament. There is an easy fix: Remove this unnecessary and disproportionate power from the law. The government can always amend regulations as it sees fit, but it should return to this place, the House of Commons, if a law duly passed by this place is to be excluded or altered in any given situation. If there is a rationale for excluding the operation of a particular law, of course we can move quickly as needed.

There are no doubt other possibilities to improve the law. It may well make more sense to limit the unique process to the next three years instead of the next five. We could require that ministerial advice with respect to conditional authorizations be made public. Expert testimony would likely offer other good ideas if we care to listen.

For my part, I will support Bill C-5 here at second reading to send it to committee, because it is time to build, and good projects should be built more quickly. I will vote against the government motion that would hinder the work of the parliamentary committee tasked with public hearings and improving the legislation. I will vote for the bill at further stages only if it is amended substantively.

We do not make laws in this place for one government or for one prime minister; the laws we pass are binding on all future governments of all political stripes. Even a time-limited law like the one that is before us would establish a precedent. If passed as it is, Bill C-5 would be a dangerous precedent that would enable Conservatives to gut environmental protections when they are in power next. President Trump is a threat to our economy; of that, there is no doubt. My constituents overwhelmingly voted for a government and leader ready to act, to respond to Trump forcefully and to build up our country thoughtfully, but not at the expense of our democracy, environmental protections and indigenous rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not heard directly on Bill C-5, but throughout the campaign, when I talked to aboriginal people in our province, everyone had the same concern. They want to be consulted before things go through. They do not want the federal government to have a veto card to push anything through.