One Canadian Economy Act

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

Sponsor

Dominic LeBlanc  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-5s:

C-5 (2021) Law An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
C-5 (2020) Law An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)
C-5 (2020) An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code
C-5 (2016) An Act to repeal Division 20 of Part 3 of the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

Votes

June 20, 2025 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (Part 2)
June 20, 2025 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (Part 1)
June 20, 2025 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act
June 20, 2025 Failed Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (report stage amendment) (Motion 19)
June 20, 2025 Passed Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (report stage amendment) (Motion 18)
June 20, 2025 Failed Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (report stage amendment) (Motion 15)
June 20, 2025 Failed Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (report stage amendment) (Motion 11)
June 20, 2025 Passed Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (report stage amendment) (Motion 9)
June 20, 2025 Passed Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (report stage amendment) (Motion 7)
June 20, 2025 Passed Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (report stage amendment) (Motion 5)
June 20, 2025 Failed Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (report stage amendment) (Motion 4)
June 20, 2025 Failed Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act (report stage amendment) (Motion 1)
June 16, 2025 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 6:20 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON

Madam Speaker, I will start out with a very simple principle that I think all of us would agree with. Certainly, science would agree with it: The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Extending grace to those on the other side, I think we all want to get to a point where we have safe, secure borders, borders where we do not have fentanyl flowing, where we do not have the flowing of illegal guns and where we do not have illegal products crossing our borders. I think we would all agree on that.

My question is, why has the government decided to obstruct its own legislation by putting through a number of things that are spurious and really do not have anything to do with the core mission I talked about? We all want to get to the same point. We want to get to a destination where Canada has safe, secure borders.

We know that the men and women at the CBSA work hard every day. However, we also know that, over the last 10 years in this chamber, the Liberals have not given them the tools they need for maximum success. Instead of talking about various issues, why do we not have a laser-focused piece of legislation that focuses on some of the core mandate issues, things we can all agree upon, and pass the legislation? I will talk about why these things are concerns to us.

I will give an example of how we could do this. Bill C-5 is deeply flawed. It is meant to be a band-aid solution for the past 10 years of terrible legislation, such as the cap on oil and gas and Bill C-69. I could go on. It is a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card for certain projects. We saw that at least it would get some projects done. My team and I worked personally and closely with the minister's team to work with that legislation to make it better. Conservatives passed over 20 different constructive amendments to improve that legislation and ended up voting for it. I do not understand why the Liberals did not adopt the same model for Bill C-2. Instead they decided to digress on a number of strange paths.

I will talk first of all about the ability for the government to obtain documents and important, critical information, such as medical information, from ISP providers, from banks and from other institutions without a warrant. That is dangerous. That is not the type of power the government needs. I agree that the member made an excellent point. As a parent of a 10-year-old and an 11-year-old, I want to make sure, to the fullest extent possible, that my children and all Canadian children are protected from the predators who are out there. I am open to discussions on that, but why not have a narrow piece of legislation that is focused on that? Why not use age verification, as in Bill S-209, which would protect children from some of these predators who are online?

The scope of data that would be available to the government is incredible. I do not think the member for Winnipeg North would have gone on a dating app recently, so this is probably not a concern to him. However, millions of Canadians have. I think they would be shocked to know that a border security bill would give the government the ability to access their Tinder profile.

What a digression that was. Once again, I will get back to my original point. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Why would we not have legislation to put that in place?

Then there are restrictions on cash. As I said, there are definitely areas where cash is misused in our economy. It can be used for crimes, such as extortion, blackmail and drug dealing. If someone can name it, it is used for that on the black market. As legislators, we have to be cognizant of this. We want to protect Canadians from being victims of crime.

Canada is known as a haven for money launderers. There is actually a term for it: snow washing. We need to fight money laundering. My colleague, the member for Simcoe North, put forward a great private member's bill that sought to fight money laundering. However, the government refused to support it and eventually it died on the Order Paper, which is unfortunate.

This is always about a conflict of rights. There are very few cases where one person is right and one person is wrong, so when we are dealing with different rights, we need to act like a surgeon. We cannot just go in with a cannon and blow things up. Why not be surgical about our approach? Instead of putting in these massive restrictions, these dragnets around past transactions, let us be surgical. Let us look at the details. Let us make sure that we are not, for example, as a member stated earlier, accidentally bringing in gurdwaras, temples, mosques, churches and synagogues, where often cash is part of transactions. There are many cultural and social activities that still rely on cash, and to have cash included is not the right idea.

At the end of the day, we can see the ideological divide. Conservatives fundamentally believe in the Canadian public. We believe in Canadians. We want to give them every opportunity to do the right thing. It is not to say that there cannot be some restrictions and there should not be restrictions, but on that side of the aisle, the new government and the old government are the same on this principle. The Liberals believe that more government is better government, that the more intrusion in our lives, the better. They believe that government can do no wrong.

We have seen, over the last decade, that the government can do lots of things wrong. We saw it invoke the Emergencies Act and debank Canadians, and it used such broad powers. I have put on the record before that the use of those provisions was fairly narrow, and very few people were debanked. I want to make that clear because that is the truth and I am here to speak the truth. However, the problem was that the proclamation the Liberals used, the emergency measures proclamation, was broad. These are not my words, but one of the expert witnesses we had before the finance committee said they were so broad that the government could have debanked someone who simply sold a pack of gum to someone who participated in the protest movement. That is not from me. Members can check the finance committee records from a couple of years back.

I am not saying that all government is bad and that government workers are bad. I am saying the opposite, as 99% are great people who do great work 99% of the time. The challenge is that we need oversight over everyone, because humans are innately flawed and will not always do the right thing. That is why we have judicial oversight. It is why we should have carefully crafted legislation that uses a laser target to get at the people we want to get at.

Instead of making a straight line, the government has decided to wander all over various places, from restricting cash transactions to getting warrantless access to the records held by ISPs and banks. This is opening up Canadians to abuse at the hands of perhaps an incompetent or worse government official. We want to make sure there is oversight of the government, such as with a search that requires a warrant.

In conclusion, while the Conservatives will always be the party of law and order and we will always stand for a strong border, we are very confused by this legislation.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 1:25 p.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is my first opportunity to address the new member for North Island—Powell River.

The Conservatives, who backed the Liberal measures through May and June, seem to have decided that now is the time to draw the line. I am glad it is on Bill C-2, because Bill C-2 should be completely withdrawn and rethought. I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks the Conservative Party would ever again back a programming motion such as the one used on Bill C-5, which denied us a chance to properly study the bill.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 12:50 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I have a question for him.

I was a bit taken aback during the spring parliamentary session. We were used to the Conservatives being hyper aggressive all the time, raring for a fight, when suddenly they became the muscle for the Liberal government in the context of Bill C‑5. Closure was imposed and we barely had any time to study the bill in committee. Today, all sorts of developments and consequences have come out of adopting Bill C‑5, which has become law.

Can my colleague tell me wether the Conservatives plan a repeat of what they did with Bill C‑5 or are they thinking of following the Bloc Québécois's lead and acting like responsible parliamentarians who properly study bills that fundamentally change our society, before working for the Liberals?

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

September 16th, 2025 / 11:10 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

The Liberals often talk about the Harper years, and they talk about where we legislated, especially with respect to minimums: drugs, guns, sex offences. The Liberals have legislated on guns; they actually weakened sentences on guns in Bill C-5. They have legislated on drugs. They have not touched sex offences once. They have not touched sex offences.

They have refused to legislate on sex offences, the most pernicious and often the most insidious type of offence, with victims serving psychological life sentences, and now they are going to tell us about how they are dealing with sex offences here and that this bill is a panacea? Give me a break.

What does my hon. colleague think?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

September 15th, 2025 / 4:05 p.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by thanking the hon. member who preceded me. It is one thing for a member to say they have championed the bill, Bill C-3, and repairing the rights for lost Canadians, but as a leader of a different party, I want to say that the hon. member for Vancouver East is absolutely right. She has championed this and championed this and not stepped back for one minute. It has not been easy.

We have had various versions of the bill come to us. We had a court decision that made it very clear that our citizenship laws are not charter-compliant. As I have, she has worked with a citizen, Don Chapman, who has championed this, who has brought forward the concerns. He wrote a book on lost Canadians to get people to see what has happened with citizenship, which used to be seen as a right passed down from parent to child. This is not new. I learned this in conflict of laws in law school, as I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you may recall. These kinds of things are not innovative. It is just very strange and disturbing for Canadians when our citizenship laws get contaminated with innovations, and citizenship is not treated as a right. That is one piece that is missing in Bill C-3. Should we have an amendment in Bill C-3 that says citizenship is a right?

However, there have been a lot of partisan jabs across the floor, even in the brief time that we have been debating this since question period. I want to take some of them up, because this is important for Canadians to know. There is another person, not in my party, whom I want to thank and make it really clear to our friends across the way in the Conservative Party. Another champion for the bill, mentioned by my hon. colleague for Vancouver East, is a Conservative, Senator Yonah Martin. She tried really hard to fix the bill. She has Korean ancestry. She has been a champion for the Canadian Korean community in many ways, including for those who suffered through the war. She is a friend of mine too, so I will admit that. Senator Yonah Martin brought this forward as a private member's bill out of the Senate to try to fix this, and as the hon. member for Vancouver East mentioned, there was a non-partisan effort among NDP members, Conservative members, Liberal members, the Bloc and the Greens to get this thing done. We were so close.

When Bill C-71 was tabled for first reading in June 2024, we gathered in the foyer with the former minister of immigration and members of families deeply affected by the unfairness of the way our citizenship laws are currently drafted. We were almost euphoric, and we were grateful to the former minister of immigration, who took this forward, who made the difference to having Bill C-71 brought forward. We were not, as an hon. member mentioned earlier, just propping up Liberals or cheering whenever Liberals did something. Again, this was the ultimate non-partisan effort led by a Conservative senator, supported by an NDP member and supported by all of us on all sides of the House. We thought we had it solved. Unfortunately, 25 bills then died on the Order Paper on January 6.

Now, it would have been nice to see the current government pick up on a suggestion I made in a written communication to the Prime Minister to please recover those bills, especially the ones that had broad, non-partisan support and had gotten this close to the finish line. Regarding the amount of waste, I imagine that millions of hours of work went into those 25 bills, many of them so close, such as Bill C-61 on first nations water sovereignty or Bill C-33 on rail safety and ports.

Let us celebrate this: The deceased Bill C-71 is back as Bill C-3. Let us hope we can have collaboration now. The Liberals here in the House today celebrate the collaboration they had in June; I have to say, that was not collaboration. That was the Greens, the Bloc and the NDP being bulldozed, with a new person driving the bulldozer in our new Prime Minister. I would say it was not just an unpleasant experience; it was an anti-democratic experience that was deeply troubling, and it was a bulldozer driver. It was a new coalition, the Liberals and the Conservatives, driving through a very anti-democratic piece, and the process was particularly anti-democratic. I hope we will not see that again.

I go back to Bill C-3.

If we are going to see this bill pass, and I hope we will see it passed expeditiously, I want to deal with some of the substantive charges that have been made in the House today in debate and put them to rest, I hope forever, so that we can return to our purpose in this place, to restore justice, to act for our constituents and to make sure we do the right thing.

This is not a partisan issue. It is about doing the right thing right now. We have a new bill before us, Bill C-3. It is almost the same as former Bill C-71, which died on the Order Paper because of the decision to prorogue Parliament on January 6.

We speak of things dying on the Order Paper; it is nice to see that every now and then we can have a resurrection. We have gotten Bill C-3 back, and it is close. I would love to have proper hearings and make sure that concerns that are being raised are dealt with by experts, with the ability for Canadians to see that we do not pass things with a gun to our head. That was Bill C-5. No committee was in in place when Bill C-5 went to second reading on Monday, June 16. No committee was yet started. On Tuesday, June 17, the committee was put in place at 3:30 in the afternoon. All amendments were due the next day, June 18, by noon, and concerns from groups like the Canadian Cancer Society could not be heard before amendments were due. We were in a hurry.

This place should be about getting things done efficiently, but not being in such a hurry that we do not do our jobs, so let us have a proper committee review of this legislation, which I think would put to bed some concerns, for instance, the idea of costs. There are Canadians who, just through peculiarities of mistakes made in the legislative process, have been denied their citizenship. We can get through this and get the actual numbers through a committee hearing process, but most of these lost Canadians live in Canada. They are not coming here as new people, just off a boat, where we wonder who they are. Most of these people have deep ties to Canada. Most of these people are already paying taxes in Canada and getting their health care in Canada. They have just been denied citizenship through the most egregious set of quite obscure and bizarre mistakes in law.

We can fix those. We can fix them now. We can fix them for good. The remaining question, I suppose, is this: Do we want to add an amendment that says citizenship is a right? Normally, I would not think we would have to say this, but when I look south of the border and hear that Donald Trump would like to take away Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship, I think maybe we ought to be concerned and make sure that we in Canada assert what is internationally understood law, that citizenship rights are rights.

People who are citizens cannot have their right to be a citizen taken away because someone in power has an obscure whim. Never mind. Citizenship should be a right. Under Bill C-3, we would be redressing the mistakes of many years and responding to the requirement of the court that we fix our citizenship laws to be charter-compliant.

With that, I know I still have about 90 seconds on the clock. I just want to make sure I plead with all of my colleagues, regardless of party, to take a step back and look at who the champions of this bill have been: a leading Conservative senator; a leading NDP member in this House; and all of us together, Green, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc and New Democrat, which is still a party in this House, by the way. Members can check the seating chart.

We are here to do the right thing and do it together.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

September 15th, 2025 / 2:40 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the major government projects that Bill C‑5 covers. Bill C‑5 takes an inappropriately top-down approach that sullies projects, even good ones.

Good projects do not need to bypass environmental assessments. They do not need to be able to break 12 federal laws. They do not need to spurn social acceptability. If they really need to do all those things, they are not actually good projects.

Will the government promise that all these major projects will abide by environmental assessments, laws and the will of Quebeckers?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

September 15th, 2025 / 2:40 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, in just one summer, 10 years of progress on the environment has been wiped out.

The Prime Minister adopted Bill C‑5 to approve projects that disregard legislation and social acceptability. He says he is open to pipelines circumventing environmental assessments. He has not renewed the incentives for purchasing zero-emission vehicles. He even backtracked on the mandatory sales targets for those vehicles. Last week, he went even further, refusing to commit to meeting his greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Will the government meet its own reduction targets for 2030 in the middle of a climate crisis?

Economic DevelopmentStatements by Members

September 15th, 2025 / 2:10 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, Canadians still pay the price for the lost, anti-development Liberal decade. Six months ago, to get elected, the Prime Minister promised to put shovels in the ground on big projects at unimaginable speeds, but what Canadians got was the same old Liberal bait and switch, photo ops and more bureaucracy, because the PM is just another Liberal.

The Liberals say five projects have made their secret list so far, some already approved and some already being built, but there is not a single pipeline to create Canadian jobs with Canadian steel and pay for programs that all Canadians want.

Conservatives worked to improve and pass Bill C-5, but it is not enough to get back the $60 billion that left Canada due to Liberal red tape. Bill C-5 admits that the Liberals' own laws blocked building. They must scrap the “no new pipelines, never build anything anywhere” Bill C-69; the shipping ban, Bill C-48; Canadian energy censorship; the Liberal oil and gas cap; and the federal industrial carbon tax so Canada can compete.

Conservatives want to unleash natural resources to make a strong, united Canada self-reliant, affordable—

The Application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C‑5—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2025 / 12:55 p.m.


See context

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the member for Vancouver East regarding the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.

In the member's view, Bill C-5 is an omnibus bill with two distinct parts, and on that basis, she asked the Chair to apply Standing Order 69.1(1), which provides as follows:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

At the outset, the Chair wishes to note that the member for Vancouver East has waited until quite late in the legislative process to raise this point of order. Speaker Regan, in a ruling delivered on November 7, 2017, noted that the analysis and division of the bill can be complex, so he encouraged members to raise their arguments as early as possible. He said, at page 15095 of the Debates:

Where members believe that the Standing Order should apply, I would encourage them to raise their arguments as early as possible in the process, especially given that the length of debate at a particular stage can be unpredictable. If an objection is raised too late in the process, the Chair may have no choice but to allow the matter to go to a single vote at second reading or third reading, as the case may be.

In this case, the member for Vancouver East has waited until the day on which the House will vote on the bill at third reading, mere hours before the Chair is required to put the question to the House. It seems clear to the Chair that she would have had an opportunity to do so earlier. The Chair wishes to reiterate the caution issued by Speaker Regan that members risk having points of order on the application of Standing Order 69.1 rejected by the Chair if they do not raise their arguments at an early opportunity. Legislation is often complex, and decisions on potentially splitting the votes may require careful analysis that is difficult to accomplish within a few hours.

In the case before us, the Chair is prepared to examine the substance of the argument presented by the member for Vancouver East only because this bill is relatively straightforward to analyze. Faced with a more complicated bill, the Chair would have been inclined to conclude that there was insufficient time to reach a considered decision.

The Chair has carefully reviewed the provisions of Bill C-5 and taken into account members' statements on the issue of dividing it for voting purposes.

Bill C‑5 has two parts. The first part enacts the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act. Part 2 enacts the building Canada act.

The first part of Bill C‑5, as its purpose clause describes, would implement mechanisms to:

...promote free trade and labour mobility by removing federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada while continuing to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians, their social and economic well-being and the environment.

The second part of Bill C-5 is intended to, and I quote:

…enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.

A close reading of these two parts does not provide a clear common element. While part 1 deals with free trade and labour mobility, and part 2 concerns the accelerated advancement of projects that are in the national interest, the purpose of each of these parts could quite easily be achieved separately. While they are ultimately designed to strengthen the Canadian economy, they deal with different issues and could very well stand independently from one another. Moreover, there is no direct relationship or cross-reference between the two parts of the bill.

The Chair is therefore willing to divide the question for voting. Accordingly, two votes will take place at the third reading stage for Bill C-5. The first vote will deal with part 1 and the short title. The second vote will be for part 2, including the schedule, which belongs to part 2. The Chair will remind members of this division of the bill once debate has concluded, when it is time to put these questions.

I thank all members for their attention.

Voting Pattern for Report Stage of Bill C-5—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2025 / 12:55 p.m.


See context

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the points of order raised by the members for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères and Northumberland—Clarke.

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères rose on a point of order concerning the Chair's decision not to select some of his of motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-5, as they could have been presented in committee. In his remarks, the member pointed out that he would not have been able to present his amendments in committee because the deadline set by the House in the order made on Monday, June 16, 2025, had passed. For this reason, these motions should have been selected.

Pursuant to an order adopted by the House on Monday, June 16, 2025, members had the opportunity to submit amendments to Bill C-5 for consideration by the committee. Despite the time limit imposed by the order adopted by the House on the submission of amendments, members were able to exercise their rights, as evidenced by the more than 100 amendments considered by the committee. Therefore, although no amendments could be debated after midnight, all amendments submitted before the deadline indicated in the House's order were deemed moved and put to a vote, as the member for Northumberland—Clarke pointed out in his remarks on the same point of order.

The Chair understands the hon. member's concerns about the impact that expediting the consideration of bills could have on members' ability to study bills and present amendments. However, the Chair must also respect the decisions of the House with respect to the organization of its business.

The hon. member's motions that were not selected sought to amend parts of the bill that had not been amended in committee. Accordingly, these motions should have been presented in committee and the Chair maintains its decision not to select them for debate at report stage.

Furthermore, earlier this morning, the member for Northumberland—Clarke rose on a point of order requesting clarification concerning the voting pattern for Motions Nos. 18 and 19 at the report stage of Bill C-5. The member requested that each motion be subject to its own vote. The member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan also intervened to voice her support for this request.

The voting table provided this morning to the House indicated that the vote on Motion No. 18 would apply to Motion No. 19, as they both sought to further amend the same amendment that was adopted in committee.

I have reviewed the motions and considered the members' interventions, and, exceptionally, I am prepared to accept this request. For this reason, there will be one vote on Motion No. 18 and one vote on Motion No. 19. A revised voting pattern will be available at the table.

I thank all members for their attention and their contributions to the arrangement of the report stage of this bill.

Democratic InstitutionsOral Questions

June 20th, 2025 / noon


See context

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats want to build our economy and create family-sustaining jobs, but it must be done right. Today, the Liberals and the Conservatives are ramming Bill C-5 through Parliament with shockingly little debate or public input. This bill creates Henry VIII powers, letting the Prime Minister override laws by decree. It guts environmental protections, undermines workers and threatens indigenous rights. This bill will end up in court.

Why is the government violating democratic values and risking critical economic projects with tactics from Donald Trump's playbook?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 20th, 2025 / 11:35 a.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, in four short weeks, the Liberals have shown us their true face. It is Pierre Poilievre's face in a red tie. Many Quebeckers voted Liberal to be protected from the Conservatives, and yet we are faced with a government that wants to govern by decree and impose pipelines with Bill C‑5. This government stole $814 million from Quebeckers to buy votes from Canadians. All of that was done in four weeks.

That is the Liberals' true face. Do they realize that to many Quebeckers, they are two-faced?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 20th, 2025 / 11:35 a.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 perfectly sums up the new Liberal Prime Minister's approach. He wants to force pipelines on Quebec, he wants to impose projects by order in council without going through Parliament and he wants to be able to bypass pretty much all laws, also by order in council, to help developers. He wants to do all this by imposing closure, without debate or witnesses, with the support of the Conservatives.

Meanwhile, the 44 Liberal members from Quebec have been trying to fade into the woodwork. Do they realize that they did not vote the right way?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 20th, 2025 / 11:25 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, first it was the CSN, then first nations and then even a few Liberals, and now environmental groups are also speaking out against Bill C‑5.

Equiterre, Climate Action Network and Ecojustice: the list goes on. According to Greenpeace:

Bill C‑5 would...sidestep long-standing environmental protections, silence communities, and violate Indigenous rights in order to ram projects through to the benefit of multi-billion dollar corporations.

Everyone is telling the Liberals the same thing. We need to study Bill C‑5 as we normally would, not force it through on a time allocation. Will they listen?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 20th, 2025 / 11:20 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC

Mr. Speaker, the CSN is adding its voice to the Assembly of First Nations. It even joins a few Liberal MPs and, no doubt, a few ministers who prefer to remain silent. They are the ones we are addressing as the vote approaches.

Bill C‑5 makes it possible to circumvent all environmental measures and suspend nearly all legislation by order in council. It is the most authoritarian bill since the Emergencies Act.

Will the ministers who disagree have the courage to oppose it before it is too late?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 20th, 2025 / 11:20 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC

Mr. Speaker, the CSN is also speaking out against Bill C‑5 and how it will impose energy projects on Quebeckers. The CSN said, and I quote:

The use of closure to pass Bill C‑5 is an undemocratic tactic supported by the Conservative Party of Canada that will open the door to irreversible mistakes...

I will repeat word for word the question that is troubling the CSN: If Bill C‑5 is so good for workers, why not take the time to study it properly?

National Indigenous Peoples DayStatements by Members

June 20th, 2025 / 11:05 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, June 21, is National Indigenous Peoples Day. Let us draw inspiration from the summer solstice and celebrate the cultures, languages, and contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples from time immemorial to the present day, and especially to tomorrow and for the next seven generations.

This is also an opportunity to build relationships and talk about mutual respect, a conversation that was ignored with Bill C-5. This bill was designed so that Ottawa can impose energy projects on indigenous peoples and then inform them of already irreversible decisions through bogus consultations. In Bill C-5, the Liberals have replicated the condescending and colonialist attitude that the federal government had toward the first peoples in the last century.

Today, we will find out whether the Bloc Québécois's amendment will make it possible to correct the situation at the last minute because we want to remove the Indian Act from schedule 2 of the bill. Bill C-5 shows how indigenous peoples, but also all Quebeckers and Canadians who care about—

Voting Pattern for Report Stage of Bill C-5Points of OrderGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2025 / 10:50 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to the upcoming votes at report stage on Bill C-5. Page 788 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:

When the Speaker selects and groups motions in amendment, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting, that is, the Speaker determines the order in which the motions in amendment will be called and the effect of one vote on the others. The purpose of the voting scheme is to obviate any requirement for two or more votes on the same issue.

The Speaker delivers his or her decision regarding the grouping of motions in amendment after the order for the consideration of report stage of the bill has been read. The Speaker informs the House of the motions in amendment that he or she has selected and grouped for debate, the voting arrangements, and, where applicable, the motions in amendment that have not been selected, stating the reasons for this. Speakers have sometimes intervened at a later stage of the debate to revise the selection and grouping for debate of the motions in amendment.

It is with respect to this latter point I am now rising. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, you have grouped Motions Nos. 18 and 19. Motion No. 18, sponsored by my Bloc Québécois colleague, seeks to add the Canada Labour Code to the list of laws that are carved out from the scope of clauses 21 and 22 of the proposed building Canada act, the so-called Henry VIII clauses in the bill. Motion No. 19, sponsored by the Green member, would seek to add the Species at Risk Act to that same list. One concerns workers' rights, and the other is environmental in nature. These are, I would suspect, very distinct policy fields and merit separate votes.

Moreover, on procedural grounds, I would note that the Species at Risk Act is already listed in the building Canada act's proposed schedule 2. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands had proposed a companion amendment in Motion No. 26, which would have removed it from the list, but this motion was not selected for debate today.

This means that the substantive effect of the motion concerning the Canada Labour Code, if adopted, would be that this law may never be added to schedule 2. On the other hand, the combined effect of the rulings on Motions Nos. 19 and 26, if Motion No. 19, respecting the Species at Risk Act, is adopted, would be that this law may not be added back to schedule 2, should it ever be removed by the Governor in Council at some point in the future.

In summary, Motions Nos. 18 and 19 are two separate motions proposed by members from two separate parties concerning very different subject matter and with two different procedural implications. In other words, separate votes on Motions Nos. 18 and 19 would not amount to two votes on the same issue.

Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that this is a textbook instance for the Chair to exercise the authority described in Bosc and Gagnon to revisit and revise the voting pattern established for the report stage of Bill C-5.

Voting Table for Report Stage of Bill C-5Points of OrderGovernment Orders

June 20th, 2025 / 10:20 a.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's ruling on the Bloc Québécois's motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-5 states that Motions No. 2, 3, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 20, which I moved, seconded by the member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, would not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee.

In actual fact, they could not have been presented in committee because it was after midnight when we proceeded to clause-by-clause consideration. Since it was after midnight, we could no longer vote separately on the various clauses, so I could not force a vote on the clauses in question.

The purpose of these motions is to identify certain clauses on which the House must hold a separate vote.

I hope that you will reconsider your decision in light of this information.

The Application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-5Points of Order

June 20th, 2025 / 10 a.m.


See context

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order regarding the government's Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.

Standing Order 69.1(1) states:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

In the case of Bill C-5, the bill would enact two separate laws. Part 1 would establish the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and part 2 would create the building Canada act. As stated in Bill C-5, part 1, “establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada.”

I want to pause here for a minute. A member just crossed in front of me twice as I was speaking, which is against the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I take it that you will note that for later on. I will continue on with my point of order.

Part 1 states, “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.”

The purpose of part 1 is to remove domestic trade barriers. In other words, it is an act to promote free trade and labour mobility within Canada. This was reinforced in the Minister of Transport's speech in reference to part 1 of the bill, when she succinctly said, “This is why it is so essential for us to press ahead with a project that costs nothing and can be accomplished at the stroke of a pen, delivering...free trade in Canada.” She also stated, “Free trade in our own country is a great idea whose time has come.”

Part 2, on the other hand, would be established so that projects deemed to be of “national interest are advanced through an accelerated process”. It is about the development of large-scale projects and the following is stated in the bill:

The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The government House leader, in his speech, stated, “Through the building Canada act, this bill will simplify federal review and approval processes for major infrastructure projects.” Part 2 of Bill C-5 has nothing to do with internal trade. These two parts of the bill should be treated as two separate bills.

In a ruling by Speaker Regan on March 1, 2018, he quoted the following: “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.”

The former House leader of the Bloc Québécois and former member for La Prairie—Atateken knew of this since it is from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec.

Speaker Regan continued as follows:

While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.

We find ourselves in a similar situation here. While the measures in Bill C-5 are broadly related to Canada's economy, part 1 is distinct from part 2. Therefore, it would certainly be appropriate to divide part 1 and part 2 of this bill for the vote.

The Speaker has that authority, and that would make it possible for members to better represent their constituents by voting separately on these bills, which are quite different from one another.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your ruling.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

June 19th, 2025 / 6:40 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the HouseOral Questions

June 19th, 2025 / 3:15 p.m.


See context

Gatineau Québec

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, that is a backhanded compliment if I ever heard one. I can think of one internal combustion engine that my hon. colleague could maybe come help me with, and I could go help him with his, and that is the lawnmower. We will be ripping the cord on that after a long session. We will be ripping the cord on the internal combustion lawnmower and getting caught up on some household duties.

I want to echo everything that my hon. colleague said and thank all the parliamentary staff, the Speaker, the clerks, all the personnel who support the table, the cafeteria, the food service staff and, of course, the PPS. I congratulate them on their 10th anniversary and echo everything said about the pages. I thank them for their service and thank them for their time here. We have been delighted to have them and wish them well as their studies progress.

I also want to thank the members of the official opposition, the official opposition chief whip and the opposition House leader.

I also want to thank the House leader of the Bloc Québécois and the whip of the Bloc Québécois. There is also the former whip whom I still see in the House, and I know that she is giving very good advice to her successor. I also thank the NDP and the Green Party and all their teams. There are a lot of people who support us in our respective roles, and that is very important.

I want to single one person out. I am sure the opposition House leader will indulge me.

I want to thank Sarah Leclair. Thank God she was there. I thank her for supporting the Liberal caucus, the Liberal government for these years. We wish her well as she relocates to another part of our great nation.

Returning to the matter at hand, this afternoon we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C‑3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. As per our solemn promise to the people of Canada, tomorrow we will begin the debate at report stage and at third reading of Bill C‑5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, which hopefully will be delivered to Canadians in time for Canada Day, along with the income tax cut, which will benefit 22 million Canadians as of July 1.

I wish a happy Canada Day to our great country and all the people who call it home.

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

June 19th, 2025 / 3:05 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, indigenous rights holders and civil society groups have been clear: Bill C-5 would violate constitutional rights, escalate the climate crisis and endanger workers' health and safety , but the Liberals and Conservatives are teaming up to pass the bill without proper consultations. The AFN, the ITK and NAN have indicated that it is an ungracious invitation to the Supreme Court. This will stall our economy and the creation of good jobs.

Will the Liberal government uphold its constitutional obligations and keep the bill out of the courts?

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

June 19th, 2025 / 3:05 p.m.


See context

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal and Conservative coalition joined hands to fast-track Bill C-5 to bypass environmental reviews, ignore provincial jurisdiction and trample on the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples.

Ontario chiefs are rejecting Bill C-5. UBCIC Grand Chief Stewart Phillip called it a “complete betrayal of Canada’s commitments under the UN Declaration [on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples]”. The assembly unanimously condemned the bill and is calling for its immediate withdrawal. Chiefs across the country are saying, “nothing's off the table” if the bill is passed.

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and withdraw Bill C-5?

Natural ResourcesOral Questions

June 19th, 2025 / 2:35 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister says she is speaking on behalf of workers, but perhaps she does not know that the Confédération des syndicats nationaux has spoken out against Bill C‑5.

If the Prime Minister were transparent about his assets, nobody would be asking these questions. Unfortunately, we have no other choice than to challenge the closure motion because the Prime Minister himself stands to benefit from this bill. He should be the first to demand a thorough study of Bill C-5. He should be the first to refuse to exempt developers, such as Brookfield, from laws by order in council. He should be the first to tackle any perceived conflict of interest.

Will he let Parliament do its job?

Natural ResourcesOral Questions

June 19th, 2025 / 2:35 p.m.


See context

Ahuntsic-Cartierville Québec

Liberal

Mélanie Joly LiberalMinister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you who is proud of Bill C-5, and that is aluminum workers in Quebec, who are represented by 44 members of this government from Quebec. Steel workers in Ontario are also proud of this bill, since their jobs are currently at risk because of a tariff war with the Americans.

Rather than pointing fingers, the Bloc Québécois should acknowledge that we are in a tariff war and help us come up with solutions.

Natural ResourcesOral Questions

June 19th, 2025 / 2:35 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, guess who is thrilled about Bill C-5, apart from the Conservatives and the oil companies. Brookfield is thrilled. The Prime Minister's former firm is getting quite the assist from the Liberals. Brookfield owns a company that produces nuclear reactors. Bill C-5 deals with that. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants. Bill C-5 deals with that. Brookfield own pipelines and has interests in the oil sands. Bill C-5 deals with that.

Is the Prime Minister imposing a gag order on Bill C-5 in order to please Brookfield shareholders of which he is one?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 19th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when talking about the connection between tariffs and bulldozer Bill C-5, two of the Prime Minister's colleagues responded by spewing nonsense, trying to come across as charming and funny, which they are not.

I do not believe that there is any connection between the tariff crisis and the time needed for Bill C-5 to eventually take effect.

I would like the economist and Prime Minister to explain the connection between the immediate tariff crisis and Bill C-5.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

June 19th, 2025 / 11:35 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

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

If this bill is passed, an injustice will certainly be corrected. Yes, these things take time. Sometimes, however, they do not take long enough. Would my colleague like to talk about Bill C‑5? It makes no sense. That kind of bill should take plenty of time. Unfortunately, the government decided otherwise.

That said, I believe that Bill C‑3 should be passed quickly, but it should still go through all the usual stages of a bill.

Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the Whole—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

June 19th, 2025 / 10:10 a.m.


See context

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

I am now ready to rule on the questions of privilege raised on June 11 by the member for Mirabel and on June 13 by the member for Lakeland concerning allegedly misleading statements made in committee of the whole.

The issues they brought forward relate to answers provided by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue during a meeting of the committee of the whole considering estimates on June 10 and by the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources on June 11, respectively.

As both questions pertain to answers provided by ministers during their questioning on estimates, they have been grouped for the purpose of rendering a decision.

In his intervention, the member for Mirabel alleged that the Minister of Finance and National Revenue intentionally misled the House by affirming in a response to a question that the Canada carbon rebate, issued as part of the federal carbon pollution pricing proceeds program during the election, was paid from funds collected by the program. He argued that the minister stated this, knowing that the timing of the Prime Minister's announcement to suspend the consumer portion of the program, and the issuing of the rebate weeks later during the election campaign, suggests that a different source was used to fund the rebate.

The Minister of Finance and National Revenue defended his response, denying having misled the House. According to the minister, he had responded in the negative to a question making an allusion to the buying of votes, not about the timing for the collection of funds.

For her part, the member for Lakeland contended that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources had misled the House in denying that politicians would be empowered to select specific projects of national interest under Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act. According to the member, several provisions of the bill seem to contradict the minister’s responses, a text that he ought to have known. The member argued that the criteria used to determine whether a statement was deliberately misleading was met and that this situation amounted to contempt. Quoting from a ruling made by Speaker Rota on July 22, 2020, she ended her intervention by explaining the difficulties relating to questions of privilege arising in committees of the whole, due to their usual format as single-event bodies, which complicates the raising of such questions.

In response to this second question of privilege, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader provided a different interpretation of the exchange. He stated that the format of the committee of the whole is not designed to receive informed and contextualized answers. He argued that in no way did the minister deliberately mislead the House in responding to the member. The selection process in identifying projects will involve various consultations and will involve engagement with diverse groups. He apologized on behalf of the government for any confusion the debate may have caused.

As this is my first ruling on a question of privilege, and for the benefit of the members newly elected to this place, I will ask for their indulgence in reiterating and explaining some key concepts.

The Chair would like to first address what may seem to some as a technical element, namely, that the statements in question were made during proceedings in committee of the whole.

When the House resolves itself into a committee of the whole, it is, for all intents and purposes, functioning as a committee to consider a matter the House has referred to it. In this regard, the practice for raising questions of privilege emanating from a committee of the whole is the same as that of a standing, special or legislative committee. As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 157:

The Speaker will entertain a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a Committee of the Whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the Committee of the Whole and reported accordingly to the House.

It also says, at pages 933 and 934:

The Chair [of the committee of the whole] has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege has occurred. The Chair hears the question of privilege and may receive and put a motion that certain events which occurred in the Committee should be reported to the House. If the Committee decides that the matter should be reported, then the Chair rises, the Speaker takes the Chair, and the Chair of the Committee reports the question of privilege. The Speaker then deals with the matter. If a prima facie case of privilege is found by the Speaker, a Member may move a motion dealing with the matter.

In his July 22, 2020, ruling, found on pages 2701 and 2702 of the Debates, to which the member for Lakeland briefly referred in her intervention, Speaker Rota acknowledged the challenge surrounding the committee of the whole format. He also highlighted the particular nature of the situation he had been asked to adjudicate. A chronological review of events shows that this specific question of privilege had been first raised in committee of the whole and taken under advisement by the Speaker, who was also chairing the committee. It is also worth mentioning that an order of the House was limiting the committee's ability to consider and report on questions of privilege. These exceptional circumstances had led to Speaker Rota's decision to rule on the matter, even though no report had been presented by the committee of the whole.

The Chair recognizes that there may sometimes be challenges with the committee of the whole format, in particular during the consideration of estimates. They, however, do not exempt members of their obligation to raise their concerns there first. The two cases presented last week by the members for Mirabel and Lakeland are no exception to this rule and are not akin to the 2020 precedent.

That being said, the Chair nonetheless reviewed whether the specifics of the two present questions of privilege would warrant a deviation from our normal practice and considered the points raised by the members on their merits before discarding them on technical grounds.

Accusing a member of having misled the House is quite serious as it may touch on their integrity. The threshold for determining if it constitutes a prima facie question of privilege is therefore very high. There must be little or no doubt left as to the validity of the claim made.

The members for Mirabel and Lakeland rightfully referred to three criteria the Chair assesses when dealing with such allegations, namely, whether the statement is in fact misleading, whether the member making the statement knew it to be incorrect and, in making the statement, whether the member intended to mislead the House.

Disagreements over facts, or how they are presented, are not uncommon in our proceedings, and members often believe that responses they receive from the government either are not correct or contradict other information they have. However, a perception of incorrect statements is not equal to a clear and deliberate intention to mislead the House.

As Speaker Regan indicated on May 18, 2017, at page 11389 of the Debates:

As members will know, the exchange of information in this place is constantly subject to varying and, yes, contradictory views and perceptions. This, of course, heightens the risk that, inadvertently, a member making a statement may be mistaken, or, in turn, that a member listening may misunderstand what another has stated.

The Chair acknowledges the dissatisfaction members expressed about the responses they received in committee of the whole. After all, the consideration of estimates is an essential accountability exercise, but taking into account the explanations provided by the minister and the parliamentary secretary, there indeed seems to be a dispute as to the facts.

If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements. For there to be a prima facie question of privilege, members must also present some evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead. I have not seen any such evidence in this case.

Furthermore, and before closing, as Speaker, I am bound to accepting members at their word, a long-standing tradition of this place. As one of my predecessors, the current Leader of the Opposition, indicated on April 29, 2015, at page 13198 of the Debates:

as your Speaker, I must take all members at their word. To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of Members' statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.

Accordingly, the Chair does not find there to be prima facie questions of privilege in either case.

I thank all members for their attention.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

June 18th, 2025 / 5:50 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a man who works hard for his riding and his constituents. I am very proud to work with him as a member of the same party.

That said, parallels can indeed be drawn between the problems we are seeing now with Bill C-2 and Bill C-5, the gag order and what is looming over our heads without us knowing it. We have been sitting for three weeks, not even four. We shall see.

There are parallels that can be drawn with all that and the proclamation of emergency measures. At the time, I was co-chair of the committee that had to examine the issue. We simply could not believe it. Nothing was done after the emergency measures were invoked that could not have been done before. We asked companies to tow trucks, which they did. The situation was resolved in less than 24 hours.

Why did the government invoke those emergency measures, extreme measures that should only be used in extreme circumstances? We wondered about that and we found it troubling.

I have similar concerns now. I am not even sure that the Supreme Court would uphold bills C‑2 and C‑5. It remains to be seen. Whatever we pass will be swiftly challenged. Unfortunately, we are opening ourselves up to rulings that will put us back to square one. I do not think that we can ignore the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, infringe on everyone's powers and trample on rights and freedoms without being sanctioned by the courts at some point.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

June 18th, 2025 / 5:35 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Unfortunately, I have some concerns about what she considers to be the strengths and virtues of this bill. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be considered in committee, but I am not sure the Bloc Québécois will support it when it comes back to the House for third reading. We will see what happens in committee, but as of right now, I have quite a few concerns about the bill.

Does keeping our streets and borders safe always mean waiving our rights and freedoms? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I do not think so. There must be other ways to make our streets and our borders safer. Once Bill C‑2 is passed, if it passes in its current form, what hopes will we have left for privacy? Our personal information could be accessed, captured or even shared with various organizations, both in Canada and abroad. Mail, something we once saw as almost sacred, was untouchable. It was a Criminal Code offence to open mail. Now the government wants to open it, inspect it and use it against us.

New powers are being granted to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to suspend, vary or cancel visas and documents. The conditions for doing so will be set in regulations that we know nothing about. What will these conditions be? How will this new power be defined? Will people who have applied and incurred expenses for their application be reimbursed? Will this bill jeopardize the status of people who were selected by Quebec, for example? In what circumstances can someone be told that their visa application will not be processed? In our view, these are important questions. They are matters that need to be clarified. Unfortunately, we do not have many details for the moment, aside from the fact that it will all be determined in regulations. I look forward to finding out in committee what kind of regulations we can expect.

Cash transactions over $10,000 will now be prohibited. I must admit that it is rather rare for me to walk around with $10,000 or $15,000 in cash in my pocket. I do not remember ever having to pay a bill $10,000 in cash in my life. However, the fact remains that this new ban will require the use of currently available banking tools, such as cheques, Interac cards and credit cards. All of this leads to interest charges and user fees for both the payee and the payer. How will that be done? How is that going to be structured? Are we comfortable with the idea of giving financial institutions, lending institutions an advantage? I have to wonder. It also leaves a trail. As I said, I am not in the habit of paying bills for $10,000 in cash, but I would like to hear from experts on this. Are there situations where this could become problematic? I admit that I do not see any. I have looked, but I could not find any, but I still think that this is an issue that should be addressed before we say that we are making a law about it.

I found the next part a bit extreme: "use an individual's personal information without the individual's knowledge or consent". Should not the authorities at least be required to obtain a warrant before doing that? This is about fighting organized crime, border breaches and terrorism. The Bloc Québécois has made that something of a calling card. I have introduced three bills to establish a list of criminal entities and to prohibit people from wearing symbols and doing anything else to promote criminal organizations, such as wearing the "support 81" shirts that caused such an uproar at the time. I believe the Bloc Québécois has been fighting this fight since the party's inception, and we will continue to do so.

Do we really want to adopt provisions that would make us live in a society where individual freedoms would no longer be protected and none of our information would be kept confidential?

I would like to talk about another serious danger. Normally, a lawyer who is seeking a search warrant must first argue before a judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence will be committed, and they must convince the judge of that. This bill changes that. Law enforcement is saying that the evidentiary threshold is a bit hard to meet, so they are asking instead for reasonable grounds to suspect. Reasonable grounds to suspect is nonsense.

For example, if I argue before a judge that I have grounds to suspect that my colleague from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle might think, say or do this or that, but ultimately, she does not do it, I could simply say that I had suspicions about her but that I was wrong. My suspicions did not materialize, but there are no consequences. However, if someone tells me that I need to have valid reasons to believe that something is the case, then my own belief, my own credibility is at stake. That is completely different. I am really concerned about lowering the evidentiary threshold for getting a warrant. I think it merits further discussion. I would like to hear from experts on this issue.

As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois has become somewhat of a champion in the fight against organized crime in a number of ways. We are calling for stronger borders. Not so long ago, my colleague who was in charge of the public safety file and I were outraged that the Government of Quebec had to spend $6 million to send boats to patrol the Quebec-U.S. border along the St. Lawrence River. We were indignant. It is not up to the Government of Quebec to pay for border protection. That is the federal government's responsibility. We demand that it uphold it. I still believe that this is a federal responsibility and something that the federal government needs to do.

Is the current form of Bill C‑2 the solution for controlling our border more effectively? I am not so sure. The same goes for organized crime. We are also demanding that Quebec's requests regarding entry into our borders be respected. The number of individuals who can enter Quebec each year must be limited. Not only have we reached the acceptability thresholds for integrating these people, but we have been exceeding them for quite some time now. Even if they enter without any grounds, if they manage to hide in the woods for 14 days before approaching the authorities, we have to take them in, send them to school, provide them with health care, clothe them and find them housing, even though we are unable to do so for the current population. This raises some serious issues. We are therefore calling on the government to abide by this threshold.

Does Bill C-2 respond to this request? I am not sure. Once again, it is all well and good to cancel or suspend visas, but there must be grounds for doing so, and the mechanism and the procedure for that must be set out. However, all of this is a bit vague at the moment. We are being told that it will appear in future regulations. That does not reassure me.

This is all happening right when the government is asking us to pass Bill C‑5. Now, this is something we do not see every day. Under this bill, a project will be decreed to be in the national interest if the Prime Minister decides it is. Projects can be exempt from pretty much any rule whenever he sees fit. All this is happening under a closure motion. I have always believed that mixing alcohol and drugs is dangerous. Now, this mix of Bill C‑2, Bill C‑5 and the closure motion has me extremely concerned.

Are we witnessing something like a shift toward authoritarianism? I do not want to be melodramatic, but I think we need to be on our guard. We need to pay attention and be cautious, because none of this is reassuring for the society we live in, a society that values its hard-won privacy protections and other protections.

I urge everyone here to be cautious. I urge us all to be champions of the kind of society our constituents want.

Strong Borders ActGovernment Orders

June 18th, 2025 / 3:30 p.m.


See context

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak again about the importance of Bill C-2. This is a continuation of sorts.

I think it is really important for us to recognize that Bill C-2 is a very important piece of legislation. We have had discussions not necessarily on Bill C-2, but on the issues. The primary purpose of Bill C-2 is to address many of the concerns that were raised in the last election.

I think it is important that we take a more holistic approach in dealing with what has been the number one issue for the Prime Minister and, in fact, the entire Liberal caucus. I have had an opportunity to expand upon that at great length in the last few days by taking a look at Bill C-2, Bill C-5 and what the Prime Minister has been doing virtually since April 28. To give that kind of perspective allows members to get a better understanding as to why this legislation is so important for all Canadians.

It is interesting. The Canadian Police Association has come onside, indicating that it strongly supports the legislation. That says something in itself. The other thing I would emphasize and amplify at the beginning is that Liberals are very much concerned about individual rights. In fact, it was a Liberal government that brought in the Charter of Rights. The issue of privacy is something we take very seriously, but we also want to deal with the issues that Canadians asked us to deal with specifically during the last election. Bill C-2 does that.

Let us reverse this a bit. We have the Prime Minister talking about building one Canadian economy. Where that comes from is that during the election, Canadians were concerned about Donald Trump, the tariffs and trade. Members will recall that the criticism being levelled by the President of the United States toward Canada was about the issue of fentanyl, of our borders not being secure. I remember late last year talking about how Canada has a strong healthy border. At the end of the day, the Conservatives constantly criticized the border and the efforts of the government to try to explain that we had strength within our borders.

Contrast that with Pierre Poilievre when he sat in cabinet. I have made reference to this in the past. When we talk about the border, this is the first thing that comes to mind for anyone who knows any parliamentary history over the last 20 years. When he sat in cabinet, Pierre Poilievre was part of a government that cut support to Canada's border security, hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of personnel.

Contrast that with the previous Justin Trudeau administration, when we saw an enhancement of border control. At the end of the day, we needed to at least deal with the issues—

JusticeOral Questions

June 18th, 2025 / 2:50 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, that all sounds great. Unfortunately, the minister voted for Bill C-5, which took away mandatory minimums for people serving sentences for fentanyl trafficking, for gun trafficking and for extortion with a firearm. Fentanyl is killing people: brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers.

Will the minister look into the camera and tell people whose children are victims, people who have died from fentanyl, that he will legislate to end the insanity?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 18th, 2025 / 2:30 p.m.


See context

University—Rosedale Ontario

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland LiberalMinister of Transport and Internal Trade

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my Bloc Québécois colleague, but I cannot agree with the notion that Bill C‑5 will have no impact on the Canadian economy.

Economists who have studied the impact of free trade within Canada have found that this measure will add $200 billion to the Canadian economy and grow the GDP by 2% to 4%. That is a significant impact.

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 18th, 2025 / 2:30 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals need to stop regurgitating stock answers.

Bill C‑5 will not have any impact on the Canadian economy, but it will have a huge negative impact on the public purse for many years to come. Bill C‑5 will have no impact on the tariff war and no foreseeable impact on production-related trade or on the Canadian economy.

Will the Liberals stop taking people for fools and admit that Bill C‑5 is the Prime Minister's business plan and that it goes against the interests of Quebec workers?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 18th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, if the G7 is considered progress, then we are not out of the woods yet.

The government is muzzling Parliament, suspending the rule of law, and preventing elected members who are not siding with the Liberals and the Conservatives from speaking, but meanwhile nothing is happening on trade and tariffs. There is talk about oil. However, Bill C-5 has nothing to do with trade and nothing to do with tariffs in the foreseeable future.

Have the government and the Prime Minister misplaced their priorities?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

June 17th, 2025 / 8:40 p.m.


See context

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a number of thoughts, particularly with the members opposite. This is important for people who follow the debate of the estimates. It is a very important debate that is actually taking place.

We often make reference to our having a new Prime Minister, a new administration and a government that truly understand the economy. There are 8.5 million Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have supported the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, which is a record number of votes in the history of Canada.

Ultimately, I think it is important that we respond to the mandate that we have been given in a very aggressive yet positive fashion. We need to work hard for Canadians and co-operate where we can with opposition parties, in anticipation that opposition parties will also co-operate with the government at times, as they have demonstrated to a certain degree already. I will get into more of those details, but suffice it to say that there has been a change in government, the Prime Minister and the administration. An example would be the consumer price on carbon. The Conservatives called it the carbon tax. It is now gone. We have a new Prime Minister, and that policy is now gone.

We now have a Prime Minister who has brought in legislation through the cabinet and caucus to deal with issues such as border control through Bill C-2. We could talk about the tax break, Bill C-4. We could talk about the one Canadian economy, Bill C-5. We could talk about what the Prime Minister has done since April 28, over and above that substantial legislation and over and above the estimates that have been provided in the ways and means. We can talk about, for example, the first ministers' meetings that have taken place. We could talk about the G7 conference that is taking place today, not to mention the many other initiatives where we have seen the new Prime Minister tackle the issue of building Canada strong, elbows up. Damn right.

I believe that we have a Prime Minister who does have his elbows up going at it, dealing with the different issues that are before Canadians today, with an objective of building the strongest, healthiest economy in the G7. That is the goal, and I believe we will be able to achieve that goal. Now, we are very much, given the minority situation, going to be looking for a co-operating partner. Today it might be the Conservatives, while tomorrow it might be the Bloc. That is possible. It could even be some of the independents, but at the end of the day, we are going to continue to move on important initiatives to build the economy.

Before I go into the details on that, I want to talk about something that has been referenced by the Prime Minister: our social programs. I have always been a very strong advocate on the issue of health care. I do not say that lightly because, since I was first elected in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I have had the opportunity to play many different roles. Since I came to Ottawa in 2010 as a member of Parliament, one of the consistent issues has been health care. It seems to have always been one of the top three issues over the past 35-plus years. I truly believe it is a part of our Canadian identity. It is one of the reasons why many people feel passionate about saying, “I am a Canadian.”

One of the shared values we have is our health care system. I am a nationalist in the sense that I believe that individuals, no matter where they live in Canada, should have access to a very basic level of health care services throughout the nation. That is why it is important that we support and get behind the Canada Health Act. That is why health care transfers are so critically important. The federal government does have a role, a significant role, to play in health care in Canada.

I was glad when the Justin Trudeau administration, of which I was a part, put such a strong emphasis on health care and providing health care services through issues such as long-term care and mental health; the creation of the true national pharmacare program, or at least the beginning of one; and the advancement of the dental care program, something I think we should be looking at ways we could ultimately be improving still.

Having said that, I want to go to what the Prime Minister has been so focused on. We can review the last election and look at election night. I hear a lot from my friends in the Bloc, who said that all that people wanted to talk about was the Trump factor, the trade and the tariffs, and that this was the reason the Bloc lost all the seats in the province of Quebec. I think the result was 44 Liberals, 22 Bloc members and 11 Conservatives. We had a substantial increase, but the province of Quebec was not alone; there were 8.5 million votes, and every province in the country has Liberal members of Parliament.

I can tell members that it did not matter where we went in the country, people were genuinely concerned, and that concern was addressed in a very tangible way by the Liberal Party of Canada, in particular by the Prime Minister of Canada. I reflect on the election, and one of the very first announcements, which, if it was not on day one of the election, it was shortly thereafter. The Prime Minister indicated that he was going to give a tax break to Canadians. By the way, that promise was kept, and I will get to that point, but shortly after and throughout, he also amplified the issue of Trump trade tariffs and the impact that they were going to have on Canada.

I believe that Canadians saw a contrast between the Prime Minister, the current leader of the Liberal Party, during the campaign, and Pierre Poilievre, and what they saw in the Prime Minister was an individual who had a background in dealing with the economy. He was appointed by a Conservative prime minister to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He was appointed to the Bank of England, again as the governor. The leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada, has a history of working with and developing an economy, and when Canadians looked at that and compared it to what the Conservative Party was offering, I not only believe that they made the right decision, but I also believe that it was in the best interest of Canadians.

Shortly after the election, we saw the Prime Minister take on the issues and put things into place in the form of legislation and budget measures. I will cite one of the best budget measures coming from the Prime Minister, which was announced just last week: the 2% of GDP for the Canadian forces. How long have we waited for a prime minister to not only actually make the commitment but also to realize it in the form of a budget, which we will be seeing later this year? “Patience is a virtue”, they say. The budget will be before us, and we are going to see the 2% of the GDP.

If members flash back to the time Pierre Poilievre sat in the cabinet of Stephen Harper, it was borderline 1%, or maybe even a little less than 1%, of the GDP. In the following administration, Justin Trudeau did increase it substantially.

For the first time in generations, we can now say that Canada is going to be living up to the United Nations target of 2%, which is a significant budget achievement.

We can also take a look in terms of the other actions that this new Prime Minister and government have put into place.

We talked about border controls, and we now have Bill C-2 before us, which will be complemented by an additional 1,000 CBSA officers along with another 1,000 RCMP law enforcement officers. The legislation would even improve the strength of our border, which is something we talked about during the campaign. The campaign ended April 28, and we now have legislation before us to be able to deal with the election platform. Again, we would think that members opposite would see the true value. They are a little slow on Bill C-2, but I will not push them too hard on that. At the end of the day, I know in my heart that this is substantial legislation that will ultimately make a positive difference, especially if we contrast it to the days in which Pierre Poilievre sat around the cabinet table with Stephen Harper, and they actually cut border control officers, cut money from our borders and the safety of our borders. It is an amazing contrast.

We can advance to yet another piece of legislation, Bill C-4, which would primarily do three things. First, it would provide the 2% tax break that the Prime Minister committed to during the election. Second, it would provide, for first-time homebuyers, the elimination of GST on a home of up to $1 million, which does a couple of things in itself. It would make it more affordable for young people to actually purchase a home, and, ultimately, it would assist in increasing Canada's housing stock at the same time. Again, I could draw the comparison of when Pierre Poilievre sat around that cabinet table. In fact, he was actually the minister of housing. How did he do on the housing file? Well, everyone knows he was challenged to build six houses, and as I have said in the past, we still do not know where those six houses were, but we are told that there were actually six houses. Contrast is really quite surprising. However, third, the bill would ultimately take out of law the consumer price on pollution, which is a substantial piece of legislation, again from April 28. This is legislation that should pass.

Let us fast-forward to another piece of legislation that we have had a great deal of discussion on: Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act. It should be no surprise to anyone in this House that the government has made that legislation a priority. From my perspective, it was the number one priority for the Prime Minister of Canada during the campaign. It provides assurances to Canadians that, as a government and a Prime Minister, we are going to push, and push hard, to build a stronger, healthier one Canadian economy by taking down those federal barriers before July 1. It was a solid commitment that was provided by the Prime Minister. I appreciate the fact that my friends in the Conservative Party actually recognize that, because without the support of at least one other party or some independents, we would not be able to pass Bill C-5, and that has been made abundantly clear by my friends in the Bloc.

It does not take much to prevent legislation from passing. Time allocation and closure motions are tools used at times in order to be able to get something through the House, because often there is no commitment to seeing it pass. If we listened to the Bloc members, that bill would never pass, so we had to bring in closure. The Bloc then says doing that is anti-democratic and is not parliamentary. We are a minority government and cannot do it alone.

Fortunately, the Conservatives were also listening to Canadians in all regions and recognized that it was an important piece of legislation. If they would like to see amendments to it, that is fine, but at the end of the day, Bill C-5 is a reflection of what Canadians expect of this Parliament. I am disappointed in my friends in the Bloc.

Take a look at what the Prime Minister has done. I made reference to the fact that there was a first ministers meeting two weeks ago, where the Prime Minister sat with premiers of the different provinces and territories and had a thorough discussion about identifying national projects that would advance Canadian interests. Even the Province of Quebec participated in that. Each province has projects. I can recall the Prime Minister asking what those national projects were and soliciting opinions and thoughts on them.

As opposed to potentially filibustering the bill, the Bloc could have actually contributed by talking about the many things that could assist the Province of Quebec through a national perspective. For example, hydro is something that could ultimately help not only my own province of Manitoba in terms of grids but also the Province of Quebec. I would suggest there are other potential projects there that need to be talked about and brought to the attention of the administration, to the premiers and the Prime Minister so that we can develop those projects.

I think of things such as the Port of Churchill and the potential of rail, and, absolutely, pipelines matter. There are issues we can take on as national projects and advance them. Bill C-5 is an important piece of legislation.

In a very short period of time, we have seen a Prime Minister who understands what Canadians want and developed a platform that highlights the legislation we introduced and that highlighted many of the budgetary allocations that are already starting to go out. The budget will be coming out in the fall, but it will be a budget that reflects Canadian interests and the direction this Prime Minister, the cabinet and the Liberal caucus want us to move forward on, which is based on listening to what our constituents are telling us. It is a true reflection of what Canadians want.

We are going to continue to build a country that is second to no other in the G7 in strength and economic power on a per capita basis. This is something that can be achieved. All we need is to continue to work together, where we can, to develop those ideas. When an idea is sound and good, I suspect it will receive a very positive outcome. It might take some time, but at least let us talk about those issues. We can, in fact, make a difference.

To conclude, I look forward to the questions that might be asked.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

June 17th, 2025 / 7:35 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, what the Conservatives are doing is incomprehensible. They are telling us that the Liberals are stealing their ideas, so we are proposing that they study the bill in committee. The Conservative position in the debate is that the Liberals are not going far enough. They have an opportunity to improve Bill C‑5 and have even more of their ideas stolen, but they are passing it up.

I think they will pay for it one day.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

June 17th, 2025 / 7:25 p.m.


See context

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the member asked where the platform made any reference to Bill C-5. I recommend that the member opposite read page 1. Page 1 captures the essence of what the Liberal Party talked about throughout the election: one Canadian economy. Bill C-5 is about having one Canadian economy. Why did the Prime Minister meet with all the premiers, the first ministers? It was to talk about having one Canadian economy.

We had a election on April 28, and the mandate was followed by meetings and legislation. Only the Bloc and some of the independents are saying no. The Conservatives and the Liberals are respecting the election outcome of April 28. Why will the Bloc not respect it?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

June 17th, 2025 / 7:15 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish you a good evening. It may be a long night for you as well.

Since this may be my last speech before the House adjourns in the next few days, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in my riding a very happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and national holiday. We are going to celebrate in style. We are going to celebrate our national holiday, our French-speaking nation in Quebec. We will be celebrating from Saint-Placide, Kanesatake and Oka to Saint-Joseph-du-Lac. We will be celebrating in Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac and in all areas of Mirabel, as well as in Saint-Eustache. There is a new part of my riding in Saint-Eustache, and I fully intend to get involved there. I would like to tell all my constituents that I look forward to seeing them. Once the House adjourns in this very troubling democratic context, I cannot wait to spend time on the ground visiting the people who elected me. I am really looking forward to it.

I began my speech this way because we need to find moments of joy in the House. We need to find them because what is happening in the House is sad. The business of supply is sad. The situation is sad, and what is even sadder is that I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. Sharing my time with my adored whip is another moment of joy. We need to find these little moments. This is one of them. The business of supply is very sad.

It is hard to get the truth out of ministers and the government. I will give one example that I referred to when I asked a question earlier. The Minister of Finance is not supposed to be a door-to-door vacuum salesman. He is the Minister of Finance.

We spoke to him on Thursday about how he had run out of funds for subsidies under the incentives for zero-emission vehicles program. We talked to him about how he had made a promise to car dealers in Quebec and about how they had advanced 70% of the money owed by the federal government out of their own pockets. We asked the minister whether he intended to keep his promise and fund the missing subsidies. The minister, who never answers a question, floundered. He did not answer. He was all over the place. In the end, he never did answer the question.

Today, we put the question back to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, whom we love because he puts on a very good show. We asked him whether the government intends to pay back the dealerships the money they are owed, given that they are small businesses. There are some in my constituency, and people have been talking to me about it. The parliamentary secretary congratulated me. He told me to keep lobbying in the corridors and that I would get there eventually.

Twenty minutes later, I read a newspaper article saying that the minister had announced that the program would be reinstated. However, the funding is still not there. With the Liberals, we have to see the money to believe it. However, at least there has been an announcement. It is not easy getting honesty and truth out of the Liberals. Frankly, the conclusion we have come to from studying the appropriations is that the government makes decisions on a whim. The Liberals do not know what they are going to announce from one week to the next. There might be good news on the military spending front. We do not even know if they came up with that the day before, the day before that, or three days prior. We do not know.

The same applies to reimbursing Quebeckers for the rebate on the carbon tax that the eight other provinces did not pay. During the election campaign, the Liberals said that they would abolish the carbon tax while giving an advance rebate to provinces where the tax had not been collected. During the consideration of the business of supply, we told the Minister of Finance that he owed Quebeckers $814 million. We asked him many times to confirm that these cheques had been sent out before the tax was collected. We asked him once, twice, three times, four times, but the minister refused to answer. That is clear proof of the strange relationship he has with the truth, to say the least.

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Giroux, was in the Senate. According to the Senate committee blues, Mr. Giroux said, “The Canadian carbon rebate, or CCR, is an advance payment to offset what people will pay for the carbon tax. Since the rebate was paid in April, but the carbon tax is no longer being collected, the money will come from the consolidated revenue because there will no longer be a fuel tax rebate or surcharge. The money will come from the consolidated revenue fund.”

It will therefore come out of the consolidated revenue fund, and Quebeckers will pay for it. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said yesterday in the Senate. Senator Forest asked again if everyone would pay, then, including Quebeckers. Mr. Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, answered that that was exactly right.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer would make a good finance minister, because he knows what he is talking about, he tells us the truth and he says things clearly. The corollary to what was said yesterday at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is that Quebeckers paid for the Liberals to buy votes. The Liberals bought votes. They handed out rebate cheques. However, it was not a rebate, because if something was not paid, then it cannot be rebated. Quebeckers were robbed, and they need to be reimbursed. That is how the business of supply works. We moved a motion, and the Conservatives joined forces with the Liberals to steal from Quebeckers.

Earlier, the Conservative member for Bow River said that the Conservatives were going to vote with the Liberals and that they never expected the Liberals to steal so many of their ideas. They are not stealing ideas, but they are stealing from Quebeckers. Where in the Liberal platform did it say that Quebeckers would be robbed? Where in the Conservative platform did it say that they were going to steal $814 million from Quebeckers? I am being told that the Liberals stole this idea from the Conservative platform. It is this murky relationship with the truth that is preventing us from carrying out the business of supply properly.

That is to say nothing of the government's Bill C‑4, which will pass with little or no study. The Liberals say it is urgent because people need the tax cut immediately. The notice of ways and means motion means that people are already entitled to the tax cut. It is now in effect. We have all the time we need to properly study the bill and invite witnesses to appear before the committee, particularly with regard to the housing measures, about which we have technical questions to ask. The tax cut is already in effect. In this case, the Liberals and the Conservatives have an unhealthy relationship with the truth.

The same goes for Bill C‑5, which should have been split in two. In that case, the ministers will not be lying in committee because they will not be appearing before the committee. We know that there is a cult of personality among the Liberals. The Liberals could almost have a Mao-Zedong-style poster of the Prime Minister and everyone would prostrate themselves before him. It is a cult of personality.

The Prime Minister appoints the minister he wants and the minister can select the projects. After that, he can do bogus assessments. When he adds his project in a schedule and to a list, all the legislation that might have been able to protect the public, the environment and the ecosystems are suspended. The Liberals tell us that is what we are going to do to build Canada strong. They need to stop saying that. When the pipeline is built, Donald Trump will no longer have been in power for six or seven years. This gives certain companies incredible lobbying power over the minister. This gives the Prime Minister discretionary power. The Liberals are telling us that no minister will be appearing before the committee. The Liberal ministers are too busy to come testify.

Although they support the bill, and we understand why, the Conservatives are voting to muzzle Parliament. The new trend among Liberals is to tell us that everything was in their election platform and that replaces the work normally done by legislators. Was it written in their election platform? Where in the Liberal election platform did it say that the platform would replace legislators if the Liberals were elected, even as a minority?

The problem in all this is that we have a Prime Minister who fails to grasp that he is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister thinks he is a CEO. He thinks he can show contempt for the House. He thinks he can show contempt for our work. He thinks he can show contempt for our committees. He thinks he is a CEO, but fortunately, he is only a minority shareholder. His party does not have a majority of seats. Do people realize that this gentleman is behaving like the majority shareholder of Canada, like the CEO of Canada? I want to look the Conservatives in the eye and tell them that they should be ashamed to hand him such power.

No budget was tabled. The Liberals' fiscal framework was flawed and incompetently put together. The government budgeted an expected $20 billion in revenues from retaliatory tariffs. That amount currently stands at $1.6 billion. Obviously, we are not going to get to $20 billion. The tax cuts were supposed to be paid from that amount. This framework was in the Liberals' election platform. Why is no budget being tabled? Why is that no substitute for legislators?

That is the problem. The problem is that we are unable to do our job as parliamentarians because neither the government nor the ministers give us the sort of respect we need to do our job. That is upsetting. It is also upsetting to see the Conservatives supporting this process.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian HeritageMain Estimates, 2025-2026Government Orders

June 17th, 2025 / 6:40 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his scholarly presentation. I would also like to take this opportunity to greet his family members, who are here on the Hill today.

At the end of his speech, my colleague said something very important. He said that it is important to study the estimates, because it is the role of Parliament and, by extension, that of the opposition, to serve as a check on the government and its spending.

After what my colleague just said, I wonder if he feels uncomfortable being part of a government that introduced Bill C-5, which is not even split up and in which the government, with the help of the Conservatives, is taking away the ability of Parliament and committees to exercise oversight and conduct a detailed analysis of such a substantial bill. How can they not be uncomfortable saying such a thing about the estimates and doing something completely different for everything else, under the pretext that one line in the Liberal election platform mentioned what is in Bill C-5?

I would like my colleague to tell me about the feelings and emotions he experiences when he tells us contradictory things like that.

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas-Powered VehiclesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 17th, 2025 / 4:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, this is a period for questions and comments. There will be no questions. I will make a comment. I rarely do that.

I listened to my colleague's speech. It has become clear to me. The Liberals no longer have a moral compass, any ideas, values or principles. They have nothing left. They are prepared to do anything to keep their seat, their big salary and their pension. We saw that today: carbon tax eliminated, no more climate policy, Bill C‑5, disregard for democracy, approving pipelines without assessments. We can add all of that to the list of violations of their purported principles.

Today we are debating a Conservative motion. I disagree with the Conservatives, but at least they are consistent. There is a Conservative motion on zero-emission standards and my Liberal colleague is teaching us a lesson on environmentalism. I wish him all the best in his career and his personal life. I hope that one day he will be able to look himself in the mirror and reflect on the values he wanted to convey in politics because they are hard to identify today.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 17th, 2025 / 3:05 p.m.


See context

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, it has been four years since we were promised new selenium regulations to protect Canada's water and fish from the devastating impacts of coal mining.

With the Conservatives and the Liberals in a bromance on Bill C-5, I am wondering whether the minister will be bringing these protections forward. Now that they have decided to ignore workers' rights, environmental laws and indigenous rights, these protections and regulations are more important than ever.

When will we see these long-awaited, long-promised regulations to stop foreign coal companies from destroying our beloved Rocky Mountains?

Intergovernmental RelationsOral Questions

June 17th, 2025 / 2:40 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 allows Ottawa to impose pipelines on Quebec, the provinces and indigenous people without their consent. Bill C-5 allows the government to breach 13 laws and to add others by order in council. Bill C-5 sets out criteria for projects of national significance, but those too can be circumvented.

This is no joke. Bill C-5 even allows ministers to circumvent Bill C-5. That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing amendments. Without our amendments, Bill C-5 is nothing more than a licence to steamroll over Quebec. Will the Liberals support that?

Intergovernmental RelationsOral Questions

June 17th, 2025 / 2:35 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he would never impose energy projects on Quebec or any province without its consent. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 states the opposite. This bill allows Ottawa to make a unilateral decision by order in council and then hold bogus consultations once the project has already been approved. The Bloc Québécois thought this must be a mistake, because that is not what the Prime Minister had promised. We are proposing an amendment in line with what the Prime Minister said. It would require him to obtain the approval of Quebec and the provinces before moving forward.

Will the Prime Minister support it?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 17th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 does not just circumvent environmental assessments. It also enables oil companies to violate 13 laws and seven regulations that mainly concern the environment.

With Bill C‑5, there is no longer any need to comply with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act, the marine mammal regulations, and many more. Worse still, proposed section 21 states that Ottawa can suspend any other act by order in council, like Donald Trump.

Is there even one law that the Liberals are not prepared to flout to please the oil companies?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 17th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member for Beaches—East York is certainly not the only Liberal who is uncomfortable with Bill C-5. There are other Liberals who did not go into politics to force pipelines on Quebec without its consent and without a credible environmental assessment. There are other Liberals who did not go into politics to undermine reconciliation efforts by forcing energy projects on indigenous people. There are other Liberals who did not go into politics to copy Pierre Poilievre's ideas and pass them with a closure motion thanks to the Conservatives.

Will these Liberals ask the Prime Minister to let Parliament do its job instead of ramming through Bill C-5?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 17th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is taking advantage of the distraction caused by the G7 summit to force his Bill C-5 through under a gag order. It is an attack on Quebec and indigenous peoples.

Fortunately, some people are paying attention. Yesterday, the Assembly of First Nations threatened to take legal action if Bill C-5 is passed without adequate consultation with indigenous peoples. Also yesterday, a former Liberal minister voted against his caucus, saying that the Liberals' approach would embarrass even Stephen Harper.

Will the Liberals take some time to answer questions about Bill C-5 instead of ramming it down our throats here in Parliament?

The EconomyStatements by Members

June 17th, 2025 / 2:10 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, in this short parliamentary session, we are rushing through legislation to temporarily, partially, perhaps, override the very laws that have defined the Liberal government's decade-long war on development. Let us name them: Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” act; Bill C-48, the tanker ban; the oil and gas production cap; and the industrial carbon tax. These laws have made Canada one of the slowest-growing economies in the developed world. Now, as we host the G7, our allies are still asking why Canada cannot get anything built.

The government's latest response is Bill C-5, which is a patchwork fix for which they hope no one notices the mess underneath. Selectively overriding laws is a fake approach.

Here is the real solution: Repeal these anti-energy laws, approve energy projects, create jobs and build again. Let us stop pretending and start delivering stronger paycheques and a better future for Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas-Powered VehiclesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 17th, 2025 / 12:20 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that my Liberal colleague intends to vote against the Conservative motion. I would have been very concerned if she had decided to vote with the Conservatives.

While she seems to be saying that we need to transition to electric vehicles, which is a great, her government is introducing more and more pro-oil industry policies. I am thinking in particular of Bill C‑5, the fact that they buy pipelines and the fact that they support carbon storage.

Will my colleague commit to trying to get her government to stop constantly working in favour of the oil companies? We cannot have it both ways. We need to choose a direction and follow it. We cannot keep moving in opposite directions.

Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the WholePrivilegeGovernment Orders

June 17th, 2025 / 11:30 a.m.


See context

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Lakeland on Friday, June 13, respecting statements made in the committee of the whole on Wednesday evening.

The member alleged that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources misled the House respecting statements he made in response to her question about the process and context of Bill C-5. My colleague across the way is unfortunately engaging in a game of gotcha politics. Members of this House know well that the cut and thrust of questions and answers in the committee of the whole can be designed to trip up another member. This can and does happen, but to impute a motive that the minister deliberately misled the House is not in question. He did not.

The time for answers in the committee of the whole is to be proportional to the time to ask the question. As members can appreciate, this results in very short questions that are not designed to receive informed and contextualized answers. That is what the minister was attempting to do in providing the member with an answer to her question, to provide her with the context and process that will be used in the project identification.

The process envisioned in identifying projects of national interest will involve consultations and engagements with a diverse group of Canadians, including, first and foremost, indigenous partners, premiers, businesses, environmental groups and investors. This is not a process where politicians make decisions in a vacuum. Rather, this process will include real and robust engagement with the groups I just mentioned.

I will, for the sake of clarity and to avoid any confusion that the minister's remarks may have caused, reassure members that the minister in no way sought to deliberately mislead the House or my colleague across the way.

We apologize for any confusion that may have arisen from this debate. I will say that the minister's attempt to clarify and provide some context on how the process to identify projects of national interest will proceed, in my view, is important for all Canadians. The groups and individuals who will have a stake in these projects need to be meaningfully engaged, heard and respected, and the process will inform our approach.

In closing, I note that the exchange that is the subject of the member's concern occurred on Wednesday evening. The member waited until Friday to raise this concern with you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not want to impute motives as to why the matter was not raised at the earliest opportunity, Thursday, June 12, when the House had over six hours of debate on the Conservative opposition day motion. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the matter was certainly not raised at the first opportunity, and it was not a matter that would have taken such an experienced member one and a half sitting days to raise.

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas‑Powered VehiclesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 17th, 2025 / 11:05 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, my apologies to the interpreters.

I was saying that, with today's motion, what the Conservatives are proposing is to hold Quebec back from its transition to a low-carbon economy and have our investments go to waste. It is simple: The Manichaean view would be that the Conservatives want us in an oil and gas stranglehold. We saw that in the previous Parliament, and they are doing it again. The Conservatives constantly defend oil and gas tooth and nail. Quebec should remain dependent on oil and gas instead of developing its own clean electricity infrastructures. That would make absolutely no sense. That is what I do not understand.

Why should we electrify transportation? Oil sands development is the industry with the highest greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Transportation is another major emitter. The electrification of transportation will reduce the consumption of fuel, along with our GHG emissions. If anyone does not believe that, they do not believe in climate change.

Even worse, it is an essential economic driver in Quebec. I myself have an electric vehicle. Some people would have us believe that electric vehicles are nothing but trouble. That is nonsense. I live in the Saguenay, precisely 665 kilometres from Parliament. I can get here with my car. I have to stop for 20 minutes to charge it at a rapid charging station, then I can continue on my way. Typically, stopping for 20 minutes during a six-and-a-half-hour drive is not a luxury, so there is no reason, with today's new technologies, not to drive a electric vehicle. What the Conservatives want, however, is to keep people dependent on oil and gas.

I see this motion as an extension of what we have seen in the past. Former Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is a master at coming up with populist ideas that make no sense. Today the Conservatives are attacking electric vehicles. They are using the slogan of Quebec's Conservative Party: “My car, my choice”. It seems to be a matter of identity for the Conservatives.

I understand that we can have polarizing debates. Some people are pro-life, others are pro-choice. They are pro-gas, so they disagree with those who are pro-electricity. I do not understand how a serious party can introduce a motion like this.

However, what is most important is that today the Conservatives are trying to defend the oil and gas industry. They are on-side with the government on Bill C‑5 to defend the oil and gas industry tooth and nail. Ultimately, the Conservative Party's rhetoric is similar to the Bloc Québécois's rhetoric: if it is good for Quebec, if it does not harm Quebec, we support it. In their case, if it is good for the oil and gas industry, if it does not harm the oil and gas sector, they support it. Otherwise, they oppose it. This motion is just one example of that.

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas‑Powered VehiclesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 17th, 2025 / 11 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Repentigny.

To put it mildly, the honeymoon between the Conservatives and the Liberals was short-lived. The new couple, united by Bill C-5, is breaking up this morning over electric vehicles. It seems the Liberals may not be willing to buy into all kinds of nonsense when it comes to the energy transition and carbon pricing. Perhaps they are not prepared to go as far as the Conservatives.

I have participated in many Conservative opposition days, particularly with regard to the carbon tax. What are they repeating today with this motion? What are they repeating in this new Parliament? One thing is very clear to me: Today’s motion, once again, shows that the Conservative Party is completely out of touch with Quebec's reality. Not only is the party out of touch, but the Conservative members from Quebec do not have the influence they need within their caucus to make progress on the issues facing the Quebec nation. We saw that this week.

As members know, we had an opposition day on the $800 million that was stolen from Quebeckers and reimbursed to the rest of Canadians for carbon tax payments they never made. What was my Conservative Party colleagues' reaction? They proposed an amendment to the effect that the $800 million could be repaid, if Quebec agreed to end its carbon exchange. The Conservative Party wanted to tell the Government of Quebec how to take action on carbon pricing.

Let us recall the psychodrama that we experienced in the last Parliament when the Conservatives were shouting about how we were the "Liberal Bloc" and about how we were supporting the infamous carbon tax, a tax that did not apply to Quebec. Now, lo and behold, the Conservatives have seen the light and have understood that this much-talked-about carbon tax did not apply to Quebec.

Let us get back to the issue of electric vehicles. I think the key question here is, who has the most to gain from the electrification of transportation and who has the most to lose? The Conservative motion picks a side. It sides with Alberta and the oil and gas sector. The people who have something to lose in the electrification of transportation are in Alberta, the oil and gas sector. The people who have something to gain are in Quebec.

What about Quebec? For the past 30 years, there has been an energy transition. I will come back to the issue of setting up a battery industry. Hydro-Québec has developed a unique expertise that could help us become North America's battery producers. What else could be said about Quebec? Quebec sits atop vast reserves of critical minerals. It has clean electricity that is accessible to everyone at a very low cost. No one pays as competitive a price for electricity as we do in Quebec. It is a favourable geographic location that could allow us to become part of the battery industry. It is a vibrant industrial ecosystem with a low carbon footprint. Consider the forestry sector. The forest is a carbon sink that allows us to sequester carbon when we use wood. Consider Quebec aluminum, which is tied to the hydroelectric sector. It is thanks to Quebec's clean electricity that we can produce aluminum and that the Americans depend on us and our aluminum smelters. Quebec has all these significant advantages that are steering us toward a major transformation and the electrification of transportation, yet my Conservative colleagues from Quebec prefer to side with Alberta.

In many areas, the battery industry that is crucial to electric vehicles in Quebec is booming. Unlike what they are doing out west, Quebec does not invest in carbon capture or storage strategies. Quebec's investments are in this battery industry. The Quebec minister has repeatedly said that his government is in talks with about a hundred companies to develop such projects.

To illustrate the pertinence of my arguments, the two main projects that are likely to develop and create an economic boom in my region of Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean are related to the battery sector. I am talking about the phosphate industry, with First Phosphate and Arianne Phosphate. Those are two major projects.

Unfortunately, we never hear the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord talk about that. During the election campaign, he preferred to talk about GNL Québec, a project that was rejected by the Government of Quebec and that had no future for us. We never heard him say that it was possible to develop a phosphate sector. We have to put all our eggs in—

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

June 16th, 2025 / 7:55 p.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I share many of the concerns that the member has identified and highlighted.

Like the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party has a lot of issues with the gag order on an omnibus bill like Bill C‑5. My question is simple: What can we do now, in a minority Parliament, to gain the other parties' support for opposing the current effort against age-old democracy and the work of Parliament itself?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 7:35 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC

Madam Speaker, if you permit, let us talk about fear. I will quote from the Refus global manifesto, published in 1948: “The reign of fear in all its forms is over.” However, to be quite clear, made-in-Canada fear has always been the only tool of the Ottawa bigwigs and the regime. Today, the bogeyman has a new name: Donald Trump. I am not trying to downplay the genuine tariff threat, but there is also the real-life fairy tale of Canada as the 51st state. We were well aware of the Liberals' total opportunism during the election campaign, which was not surprising in itself. However, we are also aware that fear is now being used as leverage for a new phase of centralization, as per usual, no surprise there. It goes by a different name: Bill C‑5.

Let us take a brief historical detour. Crisis breeds fear. However, Ottawa has always taken advantage of crises to push its unitary agenda and centralize power even further, to the detriment of the provinces and especially to the detriment of the only one among them that aspires to be home to a distinct nation, Quebec. Politics is, of course, about power dynamics, and the government knows how to use favourable circumstances to grow its sprawling apparatus. That is what happened in 1840, when the British took advantage of the crushing of the Patriotes rebellion to force the union of the two Canadas. That is what happened after the two world wars, when income tax, which was supposed to be a temporary measure, became permanent. It has never gone away. That is also what happened after René Lévesque's sovereignty-association option was defeated in 1980, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien seized the opportunity to unilaterally patriate the Canadian Constitution without the agreement of Quebec, removing its right of veto. Quebec is still not a signatory to this day. That is also what happened after the 1995 referendum, when what was known as plan B was rolled out, a manoeuvre involving a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces through reduced transfers, mainly for health care and employment insurance, and the use of new budget surpluses to create federal programs that encroached on provincial jurisdictions. That is also what happened during the COVID‑19 health crisis, when the creation of sprawling new structures was announced.

Bill C‑5 is a new form of governance based on arbitrary measures and possibly even cronyism. It was only natural that Ottawa take advantage of this American smokescreen to launch yet another centralizing offensive. Today, the Trump threat is enabling Ottawa to once again pursue the approach of forced unification and attack Quebec's distinct identity, all in the name of the need for “one Canadian economy, not 13”. We should not be swayed by the motion the elected members of Quebec's National Assembly adopted unanimously, the one denouncing this call for unification. That will certainly not be discussed or mentioned in government circles, and the 44 Quebec members in the ruling party shall remain completely silent on the issue, regardless of what the National Assembly would like. Bill C-5 will in all likelihood be passed thanks to a gag order supported by the Liberal-Conservative coalition of proud Canadians, in defiance of any democratic process. A bill with such far-reaching implications deserves to be debated, studied and rigorously analyzed; every detail should be weighed. It should not be fast-tracked like this.

Bill C‑5 is anything but a half measure. As a political plan, I would go so far as to call it radical. It is profound. It creates an arbitrary form of governance potentially based on back-room cronyism that ignores the legal underpinnings that are normally in force in a country governed by the rule of law. We already know that pipelines took over where railroads left off as markers of identity, as a cross-Canada unification measure no less contrived and colonial a construct than Canada itself. However, Bill C‑5 creates an oil monarchy on steroids, with a time allocation motion that both the government and the official opposition will be voting for, which is a rare thing in itself, so much so that we may well wonder whether the Conservatives might be thinking of suing the Liberals for plagiarism.

The Liberals came to power with their T-shirts emblazoned with their one real selling point—the fact that they were not Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives. They then proceeded to serve up a stunning example of how they will ape the Conservatives now that they are in power.

Bill C‑5 establishes an opaque process whereby developers secretly propose projects that will be confidentially reviewed by Ottawa, which will then arbitrarily determine whether they fall within the definition of the national interest, without even clearly indicating the criteria for this concept. All of this remains very vague in the bill.

Once a given project has been deemed to be in the national interest, it may be exempted from environmental impact assessements, from the usual consultations with affected citizens and from respecting the provinces and indigenous peoples.

As soon as the minister responsible for major projects declares that a project is of national interest, it will be pre-approved, provided that it meets the conditions imposed by the approval. After that, the rest is just a formality; there is no turning back. All the consultations and impact assessments that normally take place will be useless. It is a done deal, ciao, bye, because the decision is considered irrevocable. Ultimately, these processes will be nothing more than theatre.

Those projects typically take years to complete. By deciding that a project is in the national interest and must be carried out at all costs, Ottawa is going to tie the hands of future generations.

That is not the end of the bleak picture painted by Bill C‑5. When Ottawa designates a project as being in the national interest, the sponsor can be exempted from any federal law or regulation. The Liberals tried to turn the last election into a referendum on Donald Trump, and now they are trying to institutionalize governance by order, on par with what we are currently seeing in the White House.

Unlike statutory instruments that have to be published in the Canada Gazette for consultation for at least 45 business days before they can come into force, the decision to designate a project as being of national interest is not subject to consultation and can take effect as soon as the order is published. There are no guidelines outlining how the minister will have to assess the project, no criteria for assessing the impact and no deadline for consultations. Using orders in council to decide which law will apply to which entity, depending on the circumstances, is the type of abuse that is about to be established in Liberal-Conservative Canada.

In fact, the schedule to the bill lists 13 acts and seven regulations that proponents will no longer be required to adhere to, as though the oil companies' power exempts them from basic accountability in a country governed by the rule of law. These acts and regulations have been listed several times, but I will list them again: the Fisheries Act; the Indian Act; the International River Improvements Act; the National Capital Act; the Canadian Navigable Waters Act; the Dominion Water Power Act; the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994; the Canada Transportation Act; the Canada Marine Act; the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; the Species at Risk Act; the Canadian Energy Regulator Act; the Impact Assessment Act; the migratory bird sanctuary regulations; the Dominion water power regulations; the wildlife area regulations; the marine mammal regulations; the port authorities operations regulations; the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations; and the migratory birds regulations.

It goes even further, beyond the acts and regulations I just mentioned, because proposed section 21 in the bill states that the government may, by order, exempt proponents from the application of any act, not only those I just mentioned. On paper, oil companies could be exempted from the Official Languages Act, the Income Tax Act, the Canada Labour Code and even the Criminal Code. That would set a precedent that is both vague and dangerous. Is a government that can shield its friends from the law not starting to look a lot like what is happening in Washington? This is coming from people who committed to doing things very differently from what is happening in Washington.

It seems that they are in fact building the 51st U.S. state on the quiet, under time allocation, with no regard for the serious studies conducted by parliamentary institutions such as committees, and on the pretext of a bogus emergency.

It should be noted that the Canadian parliamentary system already has a rather poor record when viewed as part of the long history of democracies. In addition to being a monarchy, Canada has a parliamentary system that is not proportional. It allows a government to be formed without having received a majority of the votes. The system also grants veto power to a Senate that is made up of unelected members appointed by the Prime Minister who are free to prevent legislation from being passed even though it has passed all the stages of the House of Commons. There is also a trend towards an increasing concentration of power within the Prime Minister's office and among a few key ministers, but not too many, to the detriment of the institution of Parliament. Bill C-5 is yet another step towards radicalizing this aristocratic form of governance, which is already deeply rooted in Canadian political culture.

On top of that, we are seeing a new phase of predatory and rampant mutation of the system wrongly referred to as federalism. When Bill C-5 was introduced on June 6, the Prime Minister was asked by journalists whether the bill would make way for a pipeline to be built on Quebec territory if Quebec refuses. The Prime Minister said no, since there needs to be a consensus. The Prime Minister's word is good. However, if this were set out in the legislation, that would be even better.

When we read clause 5(7) of the new building Canada act in Bill C-5, it states:

Before recommending that an order be made...the Minister must consult with any other federal minister and any provincial or territorial government that the Minister considers appropriate and with Indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be adversely affected by the carrying out of the project to which the order relates.

It says “that the Minister considers”. This means that a minister is free to consult or not consult Quebec, the provinces, first nations or another minister on a project that would be located in Quebec. He can choose to do so, but it is not a requirement. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the minister says he will pick up the phone and make a call. If that consultation does not yield a positive result, the legislation still allows the minister to proceed. This does not even remotely resemble a veto right, far from it.

Today, the term “oil monarchy” is taking on its full meaning. Canadian oil dependency crosses party lines, as was made clear again today. However, scientists agree that 80% of oil must remain underground if we want to show some modicum of responsibility. What is more, 96% of Canadian oil comes from oil sands, meaning that the portion that does not come from oil sands is marginal. However, the oil sands are among the dirtiest sources of oil in the world.

The focus on exporting such raw materials has a major impact on public policy. Politicians believe that they need to constantly provide infrastructure and adjust environmental and health regulations in order to maintain national competitiveness. We have more proof of that today. The resources dedicated to supporting exports are set to grow indefinitely. It is a never‑ending cycle.

The railway that led to the creation of Canada was supposed to be made profitable by the transportation of commodities. That halted the exploration of new technological avenues. The result was an even greater dependence on raw commodities. There is a consistent, self-reinforcing pattern. The increased reliance on raw material exports will require increased investments in transportation infrastructure. That is money that will not be invested elsewhere in the economy. Is that a wise bet?

Oil shareholders are mainly foreign, since their profit centre is offshore. This shows how ridiculous Canadian oil patriotism is. Despite this, the share of foreign companies investing in Canadian oil has been steadily declining for several years. It generates very little in royalties.

Let us talk about shale oil. This is a particularly poor development opportunity in which Canada appears to be trapped.

One of Canada's biggest disappointments is that, in the global marketplace, in the midst of the great geopolitical struggle around oil, Canada is ultimately a minor player with basically no influence. In any event, it persists in trying to unify around this single basis because, as an artificial country, it needs to have something to build a common identity around.

After its post-national torpor, Canada is now looking to speed up construction from coast to coast to coast to the detriment of Quebec and the first nations. We have seen this movie many times before, and we think it is time for something new. We thank the Liberals and Conservatives for giving us this umpteenth demonstration of why Quebeckers need to have an independent country, a country of their own. We are not short on reasons, but this gives us one more, to add urgency to our argument.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 7:35 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, anyone who has been involved in private business knows that what we really need to make a project successful is predictability and to know what the rules are. We have seen time and time again that the Liberals move the goalposts halfway through the game. With Bill C-5, they are doing exactly the same thing.

Can the member explain why he thinks this bill is a good idea and why we should not just scrap the bills before it, which caused all these problems in the first place?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 7:10 p.m.


See context

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a lot of speeches on Bill C-5 today. It is really important to recognize the essence of the bill, which is to advance nation-building projects that will ultimately lead to Canada having the strongest economy in the G7. This is something that the new Prime Minister and the administration here has made a decision on. That is the essence of the bill.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Bourassa.

I would challenge, in particular, my friends in the Bloc and the New Democrats. As I said earlier, I am not one to defend the Conservative Party of Canada, but I can tell members that I respect the fact that they have recognized the value of this legislation. In their minds, they might think of it as a smaller step and that it needs amendments and so forth, but they recognize that this is a bill that should be advanced, and I appreciate that. I think Canadians will appreciate that.

Bill C-5 was talked about at great length throughout the country. It was not referred to as Bill C-5, but everyone in this chamber, I am sure, can appreciate the concerns that were being raised at the doors during the election that ultimately led up to April 28. Our constituents were genuinely concerned about Donald Trump and the trade and tariff issue. They were genuinely concerned about how Canada was going to be able to deal with that issue.

We went through change internally within the Liberal Party of Canada. We now have a new Prime Minister, and he demonstrated that change by taking a look and responding to what Canadians wanted. In fact, the very first announcement our new Prime Minister made was to give a tax break to Canadians. All a member needs to do is to take a look at Bill C-4. They will see the tax break there, and 22 million Canadians will benefit from that.

Members can take a look at page one of the party platform, and we even had a couple of Conservatives make reference to it earlier. I will read one sentence: “To do this, there must be one Canadian economy, not thirteen.” At the end of the day, Bill C-5 recognizes that fact.

We have a Prime Minister and a Liberal Party that achieved more votes in that last federal election than any other political party or leader in any previous federal election. We have representation in every region of this great nation. We understood what it is that Canadians were telling us throughout the nation, which is why we have Bill C-5 today.

Like Bill C-4, it is a critical piece of legislation. I am disappointed that the Bloc and the NDP are not necessarily reflecting what they would have been hearing at the doors, whether it was the tax issue or, in this particular case, Bill C-5.

I understand federal and provincial jurisdiction, and I will spend a few minutes talking about that, but I can tell members that this legislation is in the best interest of all regions. It is better for our economy. I am concerned about the aerospace industry in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba and about the different industries that we need to build to get them healthier, stronger. This is the type of legislation that will make a difference. However, we hear from my Conservative friends that the bill is not going to free everything up.

Let us talk about labour, for example. When we think of labour, there is a significant component from the federal side that would benefit from the legislation, but yes, there is a provincial side to it. I recognize that. It is something Ottawa needs to talk with premiers and first ministers about to work it through. We are taking a strong leadership stand on that issue. It is incorporated into this legislation, and two weeks ago, the Prime Minister met with all the first ministers. I trust, know and am confident that labour was part of the dialogue, whether it was during the official agenda or on the side. In all likelihood, it was both.

I can appreciate the urgency. It is not as simple as the Conservatives try to portray it. They tend to believe that we could just have a blue seal program to recognize all the health care workers. That is not a great idea. I was a provincial MLA for a number of years, just under 20 years, and in fact, I was the health care critic. When Conservatives talk about doctors, nurses and professionals, those are bodies certified from within the different provinces.

The most important things Ottawa can do are, one, provide leadership in trying to convince provinces to take down those labour barriers, and two, provide some incentives to do so. I was encouraged by the results of the first ministers meeting. The Prime Minister was working with the provincial and territorial governments, of all political stripes, putting Canadians and Canada's economy first. The general consensus that came from that particular discussion was very positive. We have already seen provinces that have taken down barriers.

From my perspective, I would like to see a lot more. Premier Wab Kinew has brought forward legislation, and he is talking with premiers, such as Doug Ford, to look at ways to take down provincial barriers. As has been pointed out, there is nothing new in the sense of the issue. The issue has always been there, even in the days when I was in MLA. I suspect if we were to check provincial Hansard, we would probably find comments from me somewhere along the lines of taking down those economic barriers.

An important takeaway is that we went from a mandated federal election on April 28, supporting Bill C-5, which was followed up by a first ministers meeting, and now we have the legislation before us. Fortunately, at least the official opposition has recognized the significance of it and agrees that it should be passed this week, but it is unfortunate that the Bloc and the NDP have not seen the merit of having this legislation. I look to the Bloc members in particular and the important role they play being part of a political party. As opposed to trying to sabotage, why could they not look at ways they could potentially improve the legislation if they have concerns about it.

There is an expectation of rebuilding our economy, so as the Prime Minister clearly indicated, we can strive for the goal of being the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. This is something that is definitely achievable. We have opportunities before us. The legislation could, in fact, enable the government to continue to take a leadership role on building strong and advanced nation-building projects that would add value to our economy and improve the lives of every Canadian, no matter where they live, whether those projects are hydro, pipelines, rails or ports.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 7:10 p.m.


See context

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. As we saw multiple times before the campaign and after the campaign, the Prime Minister took his fake little red book and signed it like he had some sort of presidential executive powers, which he simply does not. He is trying to jam this bill through as fast as he can. If he had really wanted to do it quickly, the fastest way to do it would have been to repeal Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48, repeal Bill C-50 and remove the industrial carbon tax and the cap on energy production. That would have been the easiest thing to do.

That would have opened the door to investment and to Canadians. It would have shown them that we are open for business. However, the Liberals did not want to do that, much like Cinderella's stepmother. They want to bring people to the ball. They want them to come, but they are putting on some impossible things for them to achieve knowing they will not be able to do it. That is what Bill C-5 is doing.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 7:05 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, to summarize what is in Bill C-5, once cabinet has decided that a bill is in the national interest, 13 laws will be set aside. They say that the ministers thought this bill had to move forward, regardless of all the legislation that has been passed over the years.

Section 21 of the bill is quite alarming. It allows the government not only to set aside 13 laws and several regulations, but also to add new ones. These laws are essentially intended to ensure that the projects implemented are good ones that respect the environment and protect species at risk, for example.

Why does my colleague want to support Bill C-5, which will even allow bad projects to go ahead?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 7:05 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:55 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:55 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:55 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:50 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:50 p.m.


See context

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:45 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:40 p.m.


See context

Liberal

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:40 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:30 p.m.


See context

Liberal

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:30 p.m.


See context

Liberal

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:30 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:25 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:20 p.m.


See context

Trois-Rivières Québec

Liberal

Caroline Desrochers LiberalParliamentary 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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:15 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:15 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things wrong with Bill C-5, but as Conservatives, we are just so happy the Liberals are finally doing something about anything. We have spent so many years with them stopping every single project that was proposed in this country. It is basically like a non-tariff trade barrier imposed on our own industries right here in Canada because of our federal laws. This is something that has to stop, but we are glad to see they are actually trying to get at least something done.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:15 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent 10 years building walls around the Canadian economy, and Conservatives have been asking them to tear them down. The Liberals have thrown Bill C-5 as a sort of rope ladder over the walls, and the Conservatives vote for it. The Liberals' take from this, apparently, is that if we voted for the rope ladder, we must love the walls. I am wondering if the member could explain to the Liberals why we would vote for the rope ladder and still not like the walls.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6:05 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a nation rich in resources, talent and opportunity. From potash to petroleum, from uranium to wheat, our country has what the world needs, yet our potential is being held back, not by people or the land but by federal policies that make it harder to build and grow. As we debate Bill C-5, the so-called building Canada act, we must ask whether this legislation fixes what is broken or merely patches over the cracks.

This bill acknowledges that Canada's regulatory system has become a barrier to progress, but instead of fixing the system for everyone, it offers a shortcut for a chosen few. In my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, we do not just talk about resource development; we live it. Our oil fields, potash mines and farmers provide food, fuel and fertilizer to Canadians and our global partners. We understand that development must be responsible, but also possible.

This bill claims it would fast-track national interest projects, but what qualifies as national interest remains undefined. Who decides, based on what and for how long? The answers are not in this legislation, and that is part of the problem.

Clause 5 of the bill would allow cabinet to designate certain projects for special treatment, but the criteria are vague, the process is opaque and the project list is not even public. That raises serious questions about transparency, fairness and accountability. What is more, the so-called fast-track powers expire in five years. That is not a solution. That is an admission that the government does not believe in its own regulatory framework. If it did, it would not need exemptions, and that is what this bill is, an exemption. It is not a reform or a replacement, and it would not streamline the system for its investors. It picks winners. It does not restore confidence in Canada's regulatory framework; it dodges it.

This is not how we build national prosperity. This is how we sow regional division, because when some projects leapfrog the process while others languish, people start to lose faith, not just in the system but in the fairness of our country. We have seen what happens when politics trumps policy. Major infrastructure projects are cancelled, pipelines are stalled and billions of dollars in investment are lost. That is not progress; that is paralysis.

Bill C-5 would do nothing to prevent activist litigation or intergovernmental obstruction. There is no mechanism in the bill to protect approved projects from being blocked after the fact and no real incentive for provinces or regulators to speed up their approvals. What is the point of declaring a project in the national interest if we cannot ensure it gets built?

Let us talk about timelines. The government says it wants projects approved within two years, but the bill would not in any way legislate a deadline. There is no guarantee and no enforcement. That means more uncertainty for project proponents. Let us contrast that with the United States, where certain federal energy projects are approved within 30 days. That is what it means to get serious about competitiveness.

Here in Canada, we say we are in a crisis, but we act like we are not. The Minister of Natural Resources himself said there is no investment certainty in Canada, but who created that problem? The Liberals have been in power for nearly a decade. Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and layers of overlapping regulation did not appear overnight. They were built piece by piece by the government.

Now we are told to celebrate not a fix but a workaround. What Conservatives are calling for is simple: to make Canada competitive again. Let us repeal the broken laws, create shovel-ready zones, cap review times to one year, fast-track permitting through a single, reliable process and, yes, use section 92(10) of the Constitution to declare major projects like pipelines and transmission corridors to the general advantage of Canada. That is how we ensure that national interest is not held hostage to provincial politics or activist pressures.

We also need to address labour mobility. We have thousands of foreign-trained doctors, nurses and engineers who could fill shortages all across the country but cannot work due to a patchwork of credentialing rules. A Conservative government would implement a blue seal standard, modelled after the Red Seal for trades, that would allow professionals to practise across Canada if they meet national standards. This bill could have included that. It did not. It is another missed opportunity.

I would like to share a story of a couple I met in Estevan. They run a small oil field service company. They are honest, hard-working and deeply committed to their community. They told me their biggest challenge is not financing or labour; it is uncertainty. They never know when the new rules from Ottawa will change everything. They want to invest, expand and hire, but not if the ground keeps shifting beneath them.

That uncertainty is echoed across this country. It is in mining, forestry, clean energy and even nuclear, where world-leading projects in Saskatchewan remain stuck in regulatory limbo. Bill C-5 offers no assurance that things will get better, only that some projects and some companies might get lucky. Dr. Jack Mintz warned that without regulatory certainty, capital will flow elsewhere, and that is exactly what we are seeing.

Investors are not waiting for us to get our act together. They are putting their money where approvals are predictable, often south of the border, and while Canada stalls, the U.S. moves. While we hold consultations, they build. While we argue over definitions, they approve projects in weeks, not years. We are falling behind, not because of a lack of resources or workers, but because we lack a government willing to make the hard choices.

Let me summarize our concerns. This bill leaves too much power in the hands of cabinet; lacks clear criteria for project selection; has no enforceable timelines; invites legal challenges; offers no protection against future political interference; sunsets in five years, offering no long-term certainty; and picks a few winners instead of fixing the system for all. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a regulatory system that is fast, fair and final. They deserve to know that when a project is approved, it will be built. They deserve leadership that does not just manage decline, but believes in building something greater.

Conservatives will continue to support projects that grow our economy, strengthen our sovereignty and create opportunity for all Canadians. We will work with any party to pursue real reforms, not just symbolic gestures. We will always stand up for the people who power our nation, from Estevan to Arcola, from potash miners to oil field welders, because we believe in their future and we will fight for it.

In Souris—Moose Mountain, we take great pride in being builders. Whether it is potash operations around Rocanville, oil wells of the Bakken formation or the grain and cattle operations that dot the landscape, we are a region that contributes to the economic backbone of this country. However, increasingly, people in my constituency are telling me they feel their efforts are being undercut by policy decisions made in Ottawa that fail to reflect the reality on the ground. They ask me this: Why does it take years to approve something that should be straightforward? Why are we losing investment to the United States and elsewhere when we have the resources and expertise to get things done here? Why does the government keep announcing grand frameworks that never seem to translate into shovels in the ground or jobs in our communities?

Bill C-5 should have been the answer to those questions, but it is not. Instead, it is a narrowly tailored mechanism that selects a few special projects for acceleration without addressing the fundamental problems that hold the rest of the country back. It creates a two-tier system: one for the politically favoured and one for everyone else.

What Canada needs is a one-tier system that works for all, for everyone in every region. We need a system that respects the regulatory rigour that our environment and indigenous people deserve, but one that does so in a way that is efficient, transparent and accountable. We need to stop creating special lanes and start fixing the entire road.

Our caucus has put forward common-sense proposals that would accomplish exactly that: a one-year cap on project approvals, a six-month fast-track option for strategic projects, transparent national standards that recognize provincial authority, and the repeal of burdensome laws, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that have made it nearly impossible to build anything of consequence. In short, we want Canada to be a country where great ideas get built, where workers get hired and where prosperity is not an accident, but is the result of deliberate, focused policy choices that support growth rather than stifle it.

It is not about ideology; it is about practicality. A strong resource sector helps pay for hospitals, schools, roads and the public services we rely on across the country. It supports jobs in urban and rural communities alike. When done right, it positions Canada as a responsible leader in global energy and environmental standards. Canadians do not just want a government that points at a few shiny projects and says, “Look what we did”; they want a government that builds a system that works reliably and consistently for all.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 6 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's tone tonight. During the last 10 years, we have seen the Trudeau government bring in policy after policy: Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the energy cap proposal and, on top of that, the energy regulations. We said at the time that the Liberals are making it difficult for private capital to form in the country for these big projects because of uncertainty.

The new Liberal government has put forward Bill C-5, which basically says that the whole system the Trudeau government put in place was completely over the top and has chased everything away. I know the member has talked about getting rid of some of these other things. Which would he prefer, Bill C-5 or for the government to address the awful regulatory environment created under the 10 years of the previous government?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 5:50 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Jim Belanger Conservative Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

I stand today to discuss Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, a piece of legislation introduced on June 6. The free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building canada act seek to unify Canada's economy by removing barriers to interprovincial trade and expediting major infrastructure projects.

The bill has generated a tremendous amount of feedback from the residents of Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt. I have received dozens of emails from people concerned that the government will manage to turn this initiative from something it claims would be good for northern Ontario into a mess. We have seen the Liberal government, time after time, introduce policies and programs that it claimed would help the economy, and instead, they had the opposite effect. I must say that I share that view. Bill C-5 should be a step toward economic growth and prosperity for all northern Ontarians, including indigenous people, but I do not have a lot of confidence that the Liberals will get this right.

The Liberal government's approach to this issue raises important questions about balance. Let us explore a few of its key components and the broader context it aims to address.

Part 1 of Bill C-5 is designed to create one Canadian economy out of 13. Canada's economy has long been hampered by interprovincial trade barriers, which cost our economy approximately $200 billion per year in lost economic growth. Barriers ranging from differing provincial regulations to restrictions on labour mobility have created disadvantages in our markets, making it harder for goods, services and workers to move freely across provincial and territorial lines. These barriers cannot continue if we are to compete in international markets today. For example, skilled Canadian workers, some who have decades of experience and training, are prevented from working in their fields from province to province. These types of regulations need to stop if we are to grow our economy and improve our productivity.

Bill C-5 should be a practical step toward streamlining trade and enhancing labour mobility, which could boost productivity and competitiveness in Canada. Although I support the notion that all Canadians should be able to ply their trade in any province, the devil is in the details. The Liberal government has not laid out how we are to achieve these goals. How will it get all provinces to sign on to these changes? The bill itself does not lay out the plan to achieve these goals of labour mobility. Will the bill, which allows labour mobility, stand up to legal challenges from provinces and other stakeholders who may not want to see this type of policy implemented? I am not sure the government knows the answer to that question.

I also want to take a minute to discuss the free movement of goods and products between provinces. Provinces have a combined total of about 600 professional credentialing bodies that regulate goods and services within their borders. These barriers exist in virtually every industry. Alcohol, dairy and many agricultural products are subject to these barriers. For instance, some products need to be inspected when they enter a province, even though they were previously inspected in their province of origin. It is these types of regulations that end up costing producers, and ultimately consumers, more money.

Part 2 of the bill, the building Canada act, focuses on fast-tracking nation-building infrastructure projects, such as pipelines, power lines and renewable energy initiatives. By streamlining federal government processes, the bill aims to reduce approval timelines from five years to two years. This part of the bill is particularly significant for my riding and across northern Ontario. Energy security and economic competitiveness in the global market, especially in the mining industry, are critical to the future of our communities.

We have all heard people speak about the vast resources of the Ring of Fire. The Ring of Fire is a massive mineral deposit that contains many components crucial to our modern industries, billions of dollars of minerals beneath our feet that could improve the living standards for all of northern Ontario, including indigenous people. The people of my riding would greatly benefit from the Ring of Fire project. Would the Ring of Fire be deemed a nation-building project? The people of northern Ontario deserve to know this.

I also have some concerns that the bill would empower the federal government to issue a single authorization document covering multiple permits, but it has not laid out a concrete timeline in the bill. There has been no discussion or list of what projects would be deemed as nation-building projects. Who would have input into this list? What would be the criteria to demand a nation-building project?

One of my biggest concerns is that the bill would give a tremendous amount of power to the ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. We have all seen what can happen when too much power is put in the hands of a few Liberal ministers and the Prime Minister's Office. We could very well face a situation where there would be a high degree of political interference by Liberal insiders and decisions made on ideological grounds instead of what is good for the economy and the people of Canada. There must be openness and transparency in this process.

For instance, Liberals claim they will ensure consultation with indigenous people, but there is no definition of what that means or how that process would unfold. On this side of the House, our shadow critics have argued that the bill could be simplified by broadly eliminating project-blocking laws rather than creating exemptions. The elimination of Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 would be a good start. They could also look at removing the industrial carbon tax, which would help industries invest in new environmental technologies and growth.

Private sector companies need certainty, and the fact that this bill would sunset or be reviewed in five years does not give them the long-term certainty they are looking for. If companies are going to invest billions of dollars and create jobs, wealth and prosperity for the people of Canada, they need to know what the government is doing long-term.

Conservatives have long been advocating for the following measures to achieve energy security and a strong economy. We need shovel-ready economic zones. We need to scrap the cap on oil and gas, repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, axe the industrial carbon tax and remove unrealistic and punitive electricity regulations. If the Liberal government is serious about standing up for Canada and not having us totally reliant on the U.S., then it will do all of these things.

In conclusion, Canada needs giant steps. Bill C-5 is a baby step that would not completely address the issues that have been created by the totally misguided policies of the Liberal government over the last decade.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 5:40 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Chris Malette Liberal Bay of Quinte, ON

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary has extensive experience and background in the field of sustainable development and environmental issues. We have heard some questions regarding the period of consultation on major projects. I wonder if he can explain for the House how the new bill, Bill C-5, addresses those concerns and whether he is confident that the time frame for the consultations is adequate.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 5:20 p.m.


See context

Whitby Ontario

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Madam Speaker, I hear applause starting already. I would hope they would wait until the end of my speech, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

It is a privilege to rise to participate in this important debate on a landmark piece of legislation, Bill C-5. Our government has a nation-building mandate and a bold and ambitious plan for Canada's future. Our core mission is to build the strongest economy in the G7.

As a country, we are facing new and unprecedented economic challenges. Of course, we know that our sovereignty and economic security are under threat, but Canadians are resilient. We are ambitious. We are ready to think big and undertake a historic economic transformation that can deliver greater prosperity for future generations.

As we know, Canada's relationship with our economic partners is changing. The system of open global trade we have relied on for decades is now weakened and uncertain. Even without the illegal and unjustified tariffs launched and thrust upon us by the United States, it had already been clear for many years that Canada's economy was over-reliant on trade with the United States.

True, it remains the greatest bilateral economic relationship in the world and, in many ways, the envy of other regions. It is a historic and mutually beneficial relationship that certainly served both countries well and will continue to do so, both out of necessity and under improving terms that I hope are being negotiated as we speak.

The current reality is that diversifying Canada's trade relationships and building a more robust domestic economy have become as important as ever. What has not changed is that Canada has what the world needs and that bilateral trade benefits both parties. This is why the government is working to strengthen its relationships with reliable trading partners and allies around the world while also improving our domestic transport infrastructure, logistics and supply chains to create a more nimble and streamlined economy.

Delivering more of Canada's goods to more parts of the world and being a reliable and ethical source of natural resources for more markets will help build prosperity here at home. At the same time, when it comes to transactions within our borders, the government's goal is to create one Canadian economy instead of 13 as part of our commitment to strengthening internal trade within Canada.

Internal trade is an essential element for the Canadian economy; we all know that. It supports economic competitiveness by creating jobs, helping businesses expand, enhancing consumer choice and increasing Canada's overall economic growth.

As it stands now, internal barriers to trade and labour mobility across Canada cost as much as $200 billion each year. Therefore, removing those barriers that have held back our economy is critical to unlocking Canada's full economic potential.

Another major aspect of strengthening Canada's economy is to think big and get infrastructure projects of national significance both designed and completed faster. As a country, we need to accelerate the realization of major nation-building projects that will help Canada become the strongest economy in the G7, deepen our trade relationships with reliable partners and create good Canadian jobs. The government's goal is to unleash a new era of growth that will ensure Canada does not just survive ongoing trade disputes but emerges from them even stronger than ever.

This brings me to the proposed legislation we are debating today. Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, is aimed at eliminating federal barriers to trade and labour mobility. It also lays the groundwork to advance nation-building projects that are crucial for driving Canadian productivity growth, energy security and economic competitiveness.

First, the new legislation addresses the goal to create one economy instead of 13. It would remove federal barriers to free trade within Canada's borders while protecting workers, the environment and the health and safety of all Canadians. In cases where there is a federal barrier, the legislation would allow a good or service that meets comparable provincial and territorial rules to be considered to have met federal requirements for internal trade.

For Canadian businesses, this will make it easier to buy, sell and transport goods and services across the country. It sounds simple, but smooth internal economic flows have been stubbornly impeded for a long time. It is literally the friction in the economy that has been there for quite a number of decades, including under both Conservative and Liberal governments. These internal trade barriers have proven incredibly challenging because, of course, there need to be willing partners in provinces and territories to work on this together. It seems we have the will today as we face the threats that have come from abroad, specifically our southern neighbour. There is a new will from provincial and territorial partners to overcome these internal trade barriers.

The bill would also make it easier to do business across Canada by removing regulatory duplication and cutting federal red tape. It would reduce costs or delays for Canadian businesses that follow comparable provincial and territorial rules by providing a framework to substantially reduce the burden of federal rules that apply to trade across provincial and territorial borders. This, as I said earlier, could add up to $200 billion in economic activity. It could boost productivity by up to 7% and possibly even reduce prices by as much as 15%. This means that a good or service produced, used or distributed in line with the requirements of a province or territory would be recognized as meeting comparable federal requirements.

For example, a food product that meets one province's organic standards or an appliance that meets provincial energy efficiency standards would be treated as if it meets comparable federal standards. Federal recognition of goods that meet comparable provincial requirements would make it easier for Canadian businesses to sell their products across the country and, in turn, increase consumer choice for Canadians. In addition to tabling Bill C-5, the government is also committed to removing further federal exceptions in the Canadian free trade agreement by July 2025. This will help provide Canadian businesses with greater opportunity to compete across the country.

On the subject of labour mobility, the bill would provide a framework to recognize provincial and territorial licences and certifications for workers. For example, I hear from nurses in my riding of Whitby that they cannot easily have their certifications and licences acknowledged in other jurisdictions across the country; the bill would make it easier for them to work in other parts of the country. This is really good news for nurses and many other health care workers.

This means that a worker authorized by a provincial or territorial jurisdiction could more quickly and easily, in the same occupation, work in other jurisdictions. It goes without saying that making it easier for workers to get a federal licence by recognizing workers' provincial or territorial credentials for the same job benefits both the workers and the employers by providing more employment opportunities and a broader selection of candidates. It would really increase labour mobility across Canada and widen the pool of candidates for all employers.

The second and equally important aspect of Bill C-5, as I have mentioned, is aimed at unlocking and accelerating major projects of national interest. Such significant nation-building projects can help accelerate Canada's economic growth and create well-paying jobs.

Members might be asking, what are projects of national interest? I can say that they are projects that would make a significant contribution to Canada's prosperity and advance national and economic security and autonomy. They would do this through increased production of energy and goods and the improved movement of goods, services and people throughout Canada. The projects would strengthen access to Canadian resources, goods and services to a diverse group of reliable trade partners. Again, this is all within the national interest, if we think about what we are really focused on here, which is expediting major nation-building projects. They are in the national interest. They would help us increase productivity, help the movement of goods as they flow across the country and help us diversify our trade relationships and access foreign markets.

As some concrete examples, such projects could include highways, railways, ports, airports, oil and gas pipelines, critical minerals and mining projects, nuclear facilities and electricity transmission systems. The idea is that the federal government would determine whether a major project is in the national interest, again, based on consultations with provinces and territories, and it would only be designated following full consultation with affected indigenous people. Indeed, the government is already working closely with provinces and territories and indigenous peoples to identify and operationalize such projects.

The intention is for projects to be evaluated on whether they meet all the following criteria. I will reiterate them for those who may need a reminder. A project should strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security; provide economic or other benefits to Canada; have a high likelihood of successful execution; advance the interests of indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and to Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. I realize that is a high standard. However, when we come together as a nation, as we have seen over the last few weeks with the Prime Minister's meeting with first ministers, there seems to be a real excitement to build big things in Canada again, to get big things done for the good of the country and to stand up for our economic security and sovereignty.

When a project is designated, it would be conditionally approved up front, which is a very unique and significant change to how we have done things in the past. There would still be existing review processes, but the government's aim is to strike co-operation agreements with every interested province and territory within six months to realize the end goal of one project, one review. This means realizing a single assessment for projects, better coordination of permitting processes with the provinces and territories and streamlining of multiple decision points for federal approval to minimize uncertainty for proponents, which is very important. Our economy has been riddled with uncertainty, based on the threats that we have been experiencing.

At the PM's economic growth caucus, we had our major banks' chief economists come, and every one of them said the main word that they think represents where Canada is right now is “uncertainty”. There is investor uncertainty. It is hard for the bank officials to project what is going to happen. There is a lot of uncertainty out there, so this is our way of reducing that uncertainty. The goal is to send a clear early signal to build investor confidence and start investment in construction faster.

The ultimate objective is to reduce decision-making timelines on major projects down to two years. That is a significant improvement, whereas it has taken, in some cases, five years or even more. Getting it down to two years is ambitious, but I think it is good to be ambitious. When governing a country through a crisis, we need to be ambitious. We need to get big things built. We need to overcome these internal trade barriers. We need to expedite these large, nation-building projects.

A federal major projects office would coordinate and expedite these reviews, and it would include an indigenous advisory council with first nation, Inuit and Métis representatives. The results of the reviews would inform a single set of binding federal conditions for the project. We are essentially pulling all of the requirements into one, almost like a term sheet or a document that says it is approved based on all of these conditions.

That would make it significantly easier for proponents to go through the approval process, because they would have everything in one place. They would have one window, one office to work through, a streamlined process, and a will from the federal government to essentially get things done, instead of proponents feeling like there are all of these hurdles to jump through. These conditions would also include mitigation and accommodation measures to protect the environment and to respect the rights of indigenous peoples.

As we heard from His Majesty King Charles III last month, “When Canadians come together, Canada builds things that last.” As the Prime Minister has said, “It's time to build big, build bold, and build now.” After all, our country and economic security are under threat.

At this time, I would like to commend the numerous premiers who have already taken vital steps to break down provincial and territorial barriers to trade. This new legislation is aligned with those efforts to accelerate the mutual recognition of rules and regulations.

Earlier this month in Saskatoon, first ministers acknowledged the significant progress that has been made toward removing internal trade barriers and further facilitating the movement of goods, services and workers across the country. They also recognize that there is more work to do, and they are committed “to unlock multilateral, economy-wide mutual recognition and labour mobility”. That is their commitment. I think it is great. We are working together. For the first time in my 47 years, I have seen provinces and territories and the federal government aligned to work together. That is a great thing to see. I think we should all be very proud of that. They also agreed on the urgency of building major projects that produce and connect clean and conventional energy, goods and services to markets across Canada and the globe.

Likewise, on June 11, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue convened a virtual meeting with provincial and territorial finance ministers to advance shared priorities and strengthen Canada's economic resilience. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue welcomed the growing momentum among provinces and territories to reduce internal trade barriers and unlock the full potential of the Canadian economy, in line with the federal government's nation-building agenda. In keeping with the positive and optimistic tone of both meetings, the finance ministers agreed to remain in close contact in the weeks ahead and keep driving momentum to build the strongest economy in the G7.

On the subject of building things, the government is also going to undertake a series of measures to help double the rate of homebuilding while catalyzing a new housing industry in Canada. This will help to meet growing housing demand while strengthening the construction sector. At the same time, I would be remiss if I did not point out or put in a plug for Bill C-4, which is also before Parliament right now. This bill would eliminate the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes at or under $1 million and reduce GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.

This tax cut would save Canadians up to $50,000, allowing more young people and families, like the ones in my riding, to enter the housing market and realize the dream of home ownership. By cutting the GST, as proposed in Bill C-4, Canadians would face lower upfront housing costs and keep more money in their pockets. It would also have a dynamic effect on increasing supply, spurring the construction of new homes all across the country.

Back to the legislation at hand, Bill C-5 comes at a time when there is a consensus on the urgent need to strengthen the Canadian economy and make it easier for businesses and Canadians to trade goods and services by removing barriers. It takes all levels of government to make that happen. The spirit of co-operation in the face of adversity, which we have seen in recent months, is one of the things that built this country. It keeps it strong today, but it can become even stronger. I think we have come a long way as a country. We have built railroads. We have built great things before. Obviously, we want to build big things again. We want to build big, bold and beautiful. That is going to make us a stronger country.

The one Canadian economy act includes legislative proposals to remove federal internal trade barriers and advance national interest projects. It provides a framework to strengthen the Canadian economy, diversify our trade relations and increase domestic productivity, resilience and competitiveness. I encourage all hon. members in this House to support this important piece of legislation. It will make Canada stronger. We have the best country in the world, there is no doubt, but we can always build a stronger country.

I think it matters that we have the will to work together in this House across party lines. I know that Conservative members and all members of this House want to build big things in this country. They want major projects. They want to build a stronger economy. I think that, deep down inside, they want to preserve our environment for future generations. They want to ensure that indigenous communities can be equity partners in major projects. I think these things are core to the Canadian values that we have. I know they are core to our Liberal values on this side.

I feel very proud to be standing here as part of a government that is advancing legislation to build the strongest economy in the G7. I certainly stand for that. I will keep fighting for that. My constituents voted for me and for that vision. I am really happy to be here and participating in this debate. I look forward to all members' support of this legislation as we move forward.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 5:05 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

Madam Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to speak and to rise on a bill before the House in the 45th Parliament, I would like to take the opportunity to express my deepest appreciation for the people of Haldimand—Norfolk for putting their trust in me as their representative for a second term. I am truly inspired by the people of Haldimand—Norfolk, and I am truly honoured to be their voice in Parliament.

It is important for Canadians at home to understand the broader context of this bill, Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, which is before the House.

Before U.S. President Donald Trump took office, the Liberal government was asleep at the wheel. The sweeping tariffs imposed by Trump and his America first policy and his post-Bretton Woods quest, which seeks to upend the international order, while challenging for Canada, are not the sole cause of the current trade problems we now face.

Rather, this disorder has simply uncovered a deep fissure within our nation, which has been caused by a decade of Liberal policies that have left Canada weak and vulnerable. Far from being the maple leaf elbows-up patriots they presented themselves to be, the Liberals have questioned Canada's ethos and have undermined its national sovereignty over the last 10 years. They undermined Canada's sovereignty by diverting billions of taxpayer dollars to green revolution projects through the green slush fund that has been proven to benefit Liberal insiders.

They bet against the oil and gas sector by shutting down pipeline projects while favouring the green investments from foreign, autocratic countries with worse environmental records than Canada. The social fabric of our nation and our society was also eroded during the last 10 years of Liberal leadership, creating disunity and making us vulnerable to external threats.

It is surprising to see the same Liberal Party that attacked our national identity by changing the names of streets, by tearing down statues of national leaders and by removing national heroes like Terry Fox from our passport turn around and put their elbows up and become the flag-bearers of national pride.

We have the third-largest accessible oil reserves on the planet, which we leave untapped. Once it is extracted, it goes almost exclusively to the Americans, who refine it and sell it back to us at a profit. This reality exists because the Liberal government failed to have a vision for future generations of Canadians and instead prioritized its own ideological goals for its own political survival.

The Liberal government has blocked the production of ethical oil in Canada and blocked LNG and oil development from going to international markets. We have failed to build our export capacity, and we have nearly become dependent on the U.S. market. As the G7 meets today on Canadian soil, in the beautiful, resource-rich province of Alberta, we, sadly, have the unfortunate status of being the economy with the worst economic growth.

The world's economic watchdog, the OECD, forecasts that Canada will experience the slowest growth in real GDP per capita among its member countries between now and 2060.

Because of the Trump tariffs and the government's incompetence, workers are losing their jobs. Canadian families are anxious. Communities are shaken. In Haldimand—Norfolk, where I live and in the community I represent, there are thousands of residents who work at the Stelco mill. Stelco is a vital part of our community in terms of jobs, economic activities and business partnerships. Right now, our community is hearing rumours of layoffs, and they are deeply concerned.

The Liberal government had 10 years of power. The current Prime Minister was the economic adviser for a large portion of that time. Liberals wasted the opportunity and resources, and they have left Canada vulnerable as a result.

Conservatives want nation-building projects. We want to see projects accelerated. That is why Conservatives support the intent of this bill. However, the bill takes only baby steps.

I am concerned, and many Canadians are concerned, that the Prime Minister is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He told premiers that they will have a veto on resource project development and pipelines. The government's environment minister has also been directly questioned on the commitment to build pipelines but could not even utter the word “pipelines”. During the election, we had the Prime Minister engaging in doublespeak, saying one thing to one audience in Alberta and saying something completely different in Quebec, so please forgive us Conservatives if we are a bit skeptical that the government's business is not in pipelines. Actually, the bill is an indictment of the Liberals' own anti-resource law.

If we are serious about removing barriers for workers, we need to also give professionals the ability to work across provinces, stop waste and allow international doctors who are qualified to practise rather than driving Ubers. We need access to health care. That is essential, especially in rural communities like Haldimand—Norfolk. We are hearing stories of Canadians waiting for hours in emergency rooms, who are in desperate need of urgent care. More and more we are seeing people dying on wait-lists, unable to get the critical surgeries and treatment they need. Many residents still do not have a family doctor, which means they are not getting timely access to care.

I personally had to intervene in one of these situations and speak to the former immigration minister to help a doctor in Caledonia get paperwork sorted out so that thousands of residents would not be without a family doctor, and so that Dr. Marilyn Robertson in Caledonia could be replaced with a competent doctor from abroad. If this had not happened, many residents would have been left without a family doctor.

There are an extraordinary number of bureaucratic hurdles that people have to go through in order to practise medicine in Canada. The government has missed the opportunity to introduce the Blue Seal standard and get thousands of qualified doctors and nurses working in Canada through passing a sound and rigorous national test.

In conclusion, we, as a nation, have a great and historical opportunity before us. I am full of hope for Canada. We have the potential to be the most prosperous nation on this planet, the freest, the most advanced and the most just nation in the world. That is why Conservatives will always be committed to holding this Liberal government to account and calling for higher standards in service to Canadians. We will support even the small steps to strengthen this nation. Conservatives will keep fighting for a prosperous and sovereign Canada, and we hope the government will do the same.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 5 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON

Madam Speaker, that is a fantastic question. I think that is the essence of all of this. On the one hand, Liberals say, “Let us get things built”; they say that they will get things moving and shovels in the ground. However, at the same time, they have a regulatory framework that currently exists that stifles any of that from happening, while companies that beg the government, are properly connected and maybe, hopefully, even throw a few dollars to the Liberal Party, might even get their project approved.

It happened in Ontario with the Green Energy Act; a whole whack of companies that received projects for wind turbines and solar panels were shown to have donated to the Ontario Liberal Party. I fear, unfortunately, that the framework the Liberals are setting up in Bill C-5 is a dangerous path to take; I do not advise it. That is why we have a free market, where people with the best applications go forward.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 5 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Amandeep Sodhi Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, during the election campaign, my campaign team and I knocked on thousands of doors and heard from many constituents across the riding about how worried they are regarding the economy and Donald Trump's tariffs.

Can our government count on the hon. member's support for Bill C-5?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 4:50 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in the House to add my thoughts and the views of our constituents on various pieces of legislation. Today, it will be on Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

Before I get into the meat of the bill, I will say that this is my first chance to stand and give a speech in the House since the election, so I would like to thank my team working here in Ottawa and, of course, back at home, for their ongoing work. They keep the wheels on the bus and keep things moving. I want to thank them for their very hard work and professionalism. I would like to thank Marnie; Lisa; Tara; my executive assistant, Andrew; of course Mack and Paul here in Ottawa; and, during the election, the teams of volunteers, of whom there were many on all sides.

In our part of the world, in Ontario, we went through some pretty challenging weather. There was the big ice storm. Every municipality in my riding was under a state of emergency for a couple of weeks. It put a strain on volunteers of all stripes, but everyone showed up day in and day out. They kept knocking on doors, putting up signs and spreading their respective messages, so I want to thank everyone who played a part in that role. Our democracy is stronger because of their work.

I want to give a shout-out to my campaign team and my campaign manager, Paul; my EDA president, Derek; and of course my family for their unwavering support. For everyone in this place, if we do not have the support of our family, it is extremely difficult to do this job. My family has my back and is encouraging me to keep doing this, so I thank my family as well for the ongoing support.

We are debating Bill C-5 today. It has two main parts, and the first has to do with interprovincial trade. As we all know and have heard in the debate today, Conservatives have long called for the easing of interprovincial trade barriers as essential for boosting economic efficiency, fostering national unity and enhancing competitiveness in the global economy.

One of the most compelling reasons to dismantle interprovincial trade barriers is the potential for significant economic gains. A more integrated domestic market would allow businesses to scale operations more efficiently, access a larger customer base and reduce duplication and costs. Here in Ontario, it is estimated that could mean about $200 billion annually in the province. However, Bill C-5, as mentioned, only takes baby steps and falls short of where we need to be. I am afraid Bill C-5, unfortunately, may not have any impact at all in removing the barriers to interprovincial trade.

The second and probably most controversial part is around natural resource development. Bill C-5 attempts to address the effects of a decade of Liberal mismanagement of the economy by introducing measures to fast-track major projects in Canada. After an admission that the Liberals caused the problem through Liberal laws that have made it impossible to get anything built in this country, the Liberals have turned to allowing certain projects, like those that are politically favoured and lobbied by Liberal insiders, like maybe GC Strategies no doubt, to circumvent the Liberal laws.

Conservatives do agree with the Liberals that it is all their fault that the economy is stalling when it comes to natural resource development, and that their own legislation has hobbled the Canadian economy and has actually put us at risk due to the desires of the administration down south.

We have known about the ongoing dangers of the economic waters that have become unsettled; we have called this out for over 10 years. Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill; Bill C-48, the tanker ban, which will not let Alberta energy leave off our west coast; the emission caps and many more barriers and hurdles to economic growth and expansion have all been put in place by the Liberal government.

Fortunately, we have now gotten to a place where the Prime Minister is saying that if projects are determined to be in the national interest, federal reviews would shift from whether these projects get built to how best to advance them. Apparently, according to the Prime Minister and multiple media sources, this is meant to streamline multiple decision points for federal approval, while minimizing risks of not securing project approval following extensive project risk.

This would create a system where we have more people regulating an industry than we have actually working in it, which is a problem. Again, the Prime Minister has no problem creating more white collar desk workers with government authorities, simply to expand the class of people who will always be loyal to the growth of big government. That is a choke point for innovation and productivity.

Let us be clear: We are not saying, “Let us promote dirty air and dirty water.” We all breathe and eat the same things, and we want the cleanest possible. However, when we have a political class that has no compassion with respect to the impact of its decisions, because government always gets paid and first and never runs out of supply, that is a problem. It is clear that in the legislation, without the removal of key pieces of previous government legislation I mentioned, Bill C-69, Bill C-48, and many more, the regulatory system would continue to choke industry and continue to stifle investment from abroad.

What the Liberals would do, with the piece of legislation before us, is continue to reduce our ability to extract energy and sell it to the world, unless powerful lawyers and lobbyists cozy up to Liberal politicians to get their project fast-tracked. This would lead to more government control. Why is this? It is the same thing the Liberals seemed to love with so-called green energy, more like alternative energy. It is mostly about control. This way, the government would decide who gets the government grants and who would get the fast-track approvals to bypass the legislative regulatory framework.

Of course, it happened in Ontario under Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. We all know about the Green Energy Act, where favoured companies got big contracts and grants and were able to steamroll through legislation already in place that prevented some projects from going forward.

In essence, the government wants people to buy primary services from it with their tax dollars, with all of the grants going to its chosen companies, again, with some link to government. This is how the power broker class does business, and this is why government had no problem pushing TransCanada out of building the Trans Mountain pipeline. The regulatory burden, the framework, was so much that the company had to give up. The only reason the pipeline was able to be completed is that the government took over the project with endless resources at its backing, which is the tax base, the taxpayers of this country. That is why it got completed: through government control.

If we were in some bizarre world, some upside-down universe where there were windmills in abundance and we were getting a lot of our energy from them, and all of a sudden the government found black goop that came from the ground that was able to power cities and make car engines run faster, it would be in favour of it. It would be in favour of drilling, of fracking, because it would then be the government controlling that industry and that kind of energy.

With the free market, though, if we do not like a service being provided, we take our money and go elsewhere, and because of that dynamic, of course we get competition. Somebody is always trying to innovate a product or service to gain a share of the market. That means that people who are not happy with their current offering always find the path of least resistance; they find something better. That is why, with creativity and competition, we get vibrant innovation.

When a government agency or entity monopolizes a service, we get pre-approved innovation; we always get innovation based on what the government has in mind. There is always a conclusion, and the grants are handed out based on what that conclusion is. If we are lucky, we might get some supersmart people running a department, and innovation is able to happen quicker, but on the whole, if it is left up to politicians, unfortunately innovation comes second.

I think government is not good at running much. If it were, if people say, “Well, maybe government is”, I ask what would happen if the government ran the music industry. It would probably stifle all kinds of music that the government does not like.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 4:30 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, I salute all my colleagues in the House.

I find it rather interesting that we are spending a lot of time discussing the substance of the matter and the bill itself, when we are looking at a closure motion. After a little over three weeks in the House, we are already dealing with a gag order.

First, the bill itself is a problem. It is because two bills were merged into one. What the government has done is it has used the old tactic of putting members of Parliament in a tough spot by preventing them from doing their job properly on voting day. This makes a mockery of democracy as well, because there are two parts to the bill.

The first part is not very contentious. When we listen to the comments of members from all parties, it is not very contentious. The first part of the bill seeks to remove federal barriers to interprovincial trade. Basically, what we are doing is telling the federal government to take a step back. Ultimately, what the federal government will do is recognize each province's regulations to ensure the mobility of goods and services. They will say that if the good or service meets a province's regulations, it will be recognized. That is true decentralization. In a way, it is an example of federalism that could work.

However, they then throw part 2 of Bill C‑5 into the mix. The title of this bill is mind-boggling. The Liberals are telling us that this is a bill to create one Canadian economy. We read the bill and then we look at the recent behaviour of the Prime Minister. He is going to meet behind closed doors with the oil industry, which is preparing a list of oil projects and is interested only in oil and almost nothing else. When we read this bill, we see that there may be one Canadian economy, but it is the Alberta economy. There will be only one economy, and it will be Alberta's. The bill will serve the oil industry.

Now the Liberals are promising us free trade before Canada Day. What is mind-boggling, once again, is their definition of free trade, which is essentially that, if the Prime Minister likes a bill, then all other laws can be broken. The Prime Minister can talk to his friends in a certain industry, his friends then manage to convince a minister, who holds some bogus consultation and Ottawa gets its way. I am not saying that is what will happen, but the bill would certainly allow it and that it is dangerous in a democracy.

I personally have a hard time imagining the Prime Minister sitting down with Donald Trump in the south and telling him that our definition of free trade is to let him violate our laws when it suits him. I taught economics. I have spent my entire life studying economics, and I have never seen a definition of free trade that looked like the Prime Minister's definition. It is mind‑boggling.

What does that mean? If we go by the Canadian formula, it means that the definition of free trade would be to tell the Americans that we are renegotiating the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and that if there are any projects that suit Donald Trump, such as those that violate the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the 1994 Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Species at Risk Act or the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, then the Americans can come and violate the Impact Assessment Act, the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations and the wildlife area regulations.

Let us imagine for one second going to the United States and telling them that this is our definition of free trade. Everyone here would cry foul and claim that Canada's sovereignty has been violated, "sovereignty" being a word that the Liberals have suddenly rediscovered.

What is mind‑boggling, once again, is that the Conservatives are supporting closure. Their support for the bill would be understandable.

Why are they supporting this gag order? They are supporting the gag order because they are stuck. They have no leader. For years they have been talking about nothing but oil. Doug Ford stabbed them in the back during the election campaign. They have lost the political machinery. They are also getting stabbed in the back by Danielle Smith, who supports the bill. I would imagine that the Conservatives are telling themselves that they have no leader, that the Prime Minister is popular right now and that people will not actually remember how they are voting because they are too busy having backyard barbeques.

A few days ago, the Conservatives voted to steal $814 million from Quebeckers. There were two votes in one week, and the Conservatives voted with the Liberals against Quebec both times. What the Conservatives do not realize is that they can be in favour of the bill and still vote against the closure motion. They are spending so much time kissing the Liberals' feet that they are going to get a fungal disease, as my colleague from Jonquière would say. They just need to say no to the closure motion and let the committee to do its job.

The member who spoke before me said that this is the Conservatives' best policy option right now. That is why they will pass the bill the way it is. In other words, the Conservatives are voting to short-circuit the committee. They are voting in favour of not having enough time to amend the bill. If the Conservatives have a better definition of what free trade should be, they are now voting to deprive themselves of the opportunity to improve the bill based on their own convictions. That is pathetic. The Liberals were elected, and the Conservatives are rolling over and accepting the outcome. They are telling themselves that people do not want anyone to stand in the way and that the Prime Minister is popular.

What kind of democracy do we have if a gag order is imposed barely three weeks after the House comes back? The Conservatives are criticizing the Liberals because they have not tabled a budget yet. They are up in arms about transparency and accountability, yet here they are giving up the opportunity to do the work in committee. That work would give us a chance to hear from witnesses, and I am not just talking about witnesses from Quebec or about Greenpeace representatives or environmentalists. I am also talking about people who think like the Conservatives and who would try to turn this bill into something I would oppose. The Conservatives see doing that work as obstructing the Prime Minister, who appears to have become Canada's new monarch.

What do Conservative members do for the money they are paid? The 44 members from Quebec here in the House are right to say that there was a fear campaign during the election. They are right to say that Quebeckers elected a lot of Liberals. They are reminding us of that, and we are taking note. We know that; we are intelligent people. Those members were elected to defend Quebeckers. The ball is in their court. Quebec members are telling us that the Quebec government, employers and unions are in favour of their bill. The Liberal parroting has well and truly begun. They kept saying it over and over throughout question period. Well, then, why do they not send the bill to committee? Call the unions, the workers and the employers to appear. If they think that Quebeckers would support this bill in its entirety, why are they not letting those people be called to appear before the committee?

The Prime Minister met with his buddies from the oil and gas industry. A list of projects is on the way this fall. The Liberals still have not tabled a budget, however. Now they tell us that this bill can bypass the democratic process because it was written on the first page of their election platform. Where are the other pages? Where is the necessary budget? An election was called, and we were told that the world had changed but public finances had not. We are being told that we have to create a new Canadian economy with a bill that allows no room for consultations or democratic work. If the Liberals want to table their platform, they should table all of it. They should do all the work, not just half of it.

I see members from Quebec over there at the back, futzing around on their phones and ignoring the debates. They were elected to stand up for Quebec. Now the ball is in their court. They need to prove to us that they are going to stand up for Quebec. So far, 44 Liberal members from Quebec have risen to vote against a unanimous motion by the Quebec National Assembly concerning the issue of one economy, not 13, as defined by the federal government. Is rising to show contempt for all 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec the right way to stand up for Quebec?

So far, these people have shown that they are not doing what they were elected to do. Yes, there are a lot of them. Yes, there are 44 of them. The shame that they must feel for their behaviour so far must be proportional to their numbers in the House.

This closure motion is unacceptable. For the sake of democracy, this bill must be referred to committee.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 4:30 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Let me commend you, Madam Speaker, on making that particular loud Liberal voice quiet. I respect your authority and our colleagues here.

What I would simply say is this. We came here after a hard-fought election to get things done. I may not necessarily agree with everything in Bill C-5, but I do recognize that the regulatory environment the previous government created had grown unwieldy and out of control. We could not build important public infrastructure. That needs to change. That is why I am supporting the bill at second reading.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 4:30 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Madam Speaker, I will say it once again for my Quebec colleague. It is because the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party agitated against the Harper government's reworking of our environmental system to get private sector formations and important infrastructure built. They used it politically to win elections. That is something they chose back then.

By putting forward Bill C-5, the government, under the current Prime Minister, admits it has gone too far. Would I want it to address C-69 and get a system that works well for everyone instead of using this loophole in Bill C-5 to work around the system and create other issues? Absolutely.

Right now, we need to start getting our resources to new markets away from the Americans. That is something the people in Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna have told me. We only have limited time, so I am going to support that as not being my first option, but my second one.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 4:30 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Madam Speaker, this is the arrogance that comes from that other side. They cannot accept a yes.

There was an election. I argued that the Liberals had done such a poor job under Justin Trudeau that they actually wrecked our regulatory environment so that private capital formation was impossible in this country. Now, with this Bill C-5 coming forward, this Liberal government is admitting it was a complete failure. Rather than addressing Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and all the other things that I have mentioned, they are doing a workaround.

They won an election. I want to see projects go forward. This is not my first policy option. With the arrogance that this party is putting out while they do this, they should be mindful that Joe Clark thought he had a majority as well. I look at where that ended up getting him, particularly with a whip who could not count.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 4:20 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 4 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 3:50 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 3:45 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 3:40 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 3:35 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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 PrioritiesOral Questions

June 16th, 2025 / 2:35 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 16th, 2025 / 2:35 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 16th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 16th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 16th, 2025 / 2:20 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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 ResourcesOral Questions

June 16th, 2025 / 2:20 p.m.


See context

Gatineau Québec

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader 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 AffairsStatements by Members

June 16th, 2025 / 2 p.m.


See context

NDP

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

June 16th, 2025 / 1:45 p.m.


See context

Liberal

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 1:45 p.m.


See context

Conservative

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.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 1:45 p.m.


See context

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, I congratulate the member on his election.

I wonder if the member has heard from the Nunatsiavut Government in his province and whether it has shared its concerns with Bill C-5 and how the bill would infringe on its rights.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 1:30 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Jonathan Rowe Conservative Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador relies heavily on the tourism industry. In fact, it is one of the biggest employers in rural Newfoundland, since the collapse of the fishery. Even this industry has a massive trade barrier: the Marine Atlantic ferry. This ferry acts as a bottleneck, holding back growth despite demand. Bill C-5 talks about nation-building projects, yet our current infrastructure and transportation system needs immediate attention.

During tourism season, these vessels are fully booked, with no room for tourist vehicles and RVs. Although most hotels, resorts and restaurants have more capacity, tourists are not able to get across the gulf into Newfoundland. Our tourism industry has grown tremendously in the last decade, yet Marine Atlantic services have hardly grown. Hotel rooms and historical tours go unused because there is no ferry space available to bring travellers in.

During this last campaign, when the Liberals knew they were going to lose more seats, like mine, they made a last-minute election promise to reduce the ferry rates. Now, we can all agree that passenger rates should be free, but the Liberals promised to reduce rates before Canada Day. We are only two weeks away, and the prices still have not changed. People are booking ferry rides now for July and August, but what will happen? Will they get reimbursed? People do not know what is going to happen. This uncertainty undermines planning for families and is creating uncertainty in our tourism industry.

If the Liberals want to reduce trade barriers, they need to take a good look at how the island of Newfoundland does trade. Fifty percent of our province's cargo shipments are through private cargo companies, yet only Marine Atlantic cargo is subsidized. How can private industry compete when shipping costs are so high?

If the government wants to continue its freeze on transport trucks, will this create even more demand on Marine Atlantic services, eliminating even more possible ventures for passenger opportunity and tourism opportunity? Why does the Liberal government not make up its mind and either subsidize all cargo shipping into the province or none of it? Perhaps that would shift the cargo market, resulting in fewer transport trucks on our ferries, allowing for more passengers and more tourists to boost our economy, which would reduce the interprovincial trade barriers on our tourism industry.

Speaking of ferries, I see in the national news that the Province of British Columbia has awarded its ferry construction contracts to Chinese companies, for the ferries to be built in China, a country we are currently having a trade war with. This decision undermines Canada's industrial backbone. The Prime Minister says he is elbows up for Canada, and he brags about allegedly successful meetings with premiers across the country, yet he cannot seem to convince B.C. to build these ferries here in Canada.

Talk without action means loss of jobs for our country, which may soon have a stockpile of unused steel and skyrocketing unemployment. I am curious to know how many other boatbuilding jobs will be going overseas. B.C. alone says it expects to create 18 new ferries in the next 15 years. Where will these boats be built? Will these powerful paycheques retreat overseas?

I understand that the Liberal government has all its consultants as busy as a Bay Street banker rewriting the rules of capitalism before breakfast, but perhaps the Transport Canada minister and her team could investigate this fiasco to determine what needs to be done for these boats to be built here in Canada. In my district alone, there are two shipyards and two fabrication sites sitting idle. Perhaps the Liberal government could work with private industry to make real investment here in Atlantic Canada to conduct minor upgrades to build these ferries, future ferries and other Canadian ships. These idle sites represent a ready-for-business infrastructure and workforce.

Being an island and a landmass in the most eastern part of the country holds other connection difficulties as well. Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the largest providers of hydroelectricity in the country, with potential to have massive expansion, yet we struggle to get our power to market. Will the government use Bill C-5 to remove the interprovincial trade barriers on our green energy by ensuring that its proposed energy corridor would be connected to our province? That way, we could sell our electricity at fair market value without the extortion of other provinces. Removing these barriers would both boost our Newfoundland economy and meet national energy needs.

Considering the government just hired Hydro-Québec's Michael Sabia, I and every other Newfoundlander and Labradorian have major doubts that this energy corridor would allow our Labrador electricity to market without other provinces taking the icing off the top.

We want someone from the government on that side of the House to take a stand and assure us that this energy corridor will remove all provincial barriers and gatekeepers, so Newfoundland and Labrador can get our energy to market without having to give away our lunch money. We want a commitment to clarity, timelines and fair play conditions so that all provincial governments and private energy investors can prepare for this enormous opportunity.

Let us get down to the core of Bill C-5. The biggest component of the bill would allow the Liberal government to select a few projects it deems as nation-building projects. What is interesting about this is that even the Liberals now understand that their anti-building laws, anti-mining laws and anti-energy laws are too much for private industry to navigate on their own. They created so much red tape that they now need this new bill to roll out the red carpet for their VIP-selected projects.

Perhaps my colleagues will be filled with the highest level of integrity and would never plan to violate any ethical policies or choose companies that would benefit them, but I can assure the members, absolute power corrupts absolutely. By giving themselves the power to make or break any project in Canada with a slight stroke of a pen, it is only a matter of time before we see more shameful stories such as GC Strategies, which was given nearly 100 million taxpayer dollars in contracts to do nothing, or the green slush fund, where over six years Sustainable Development Technology Canada approved approximately 900 million taxpayer dollars in funding that was inappropriately directed to projects that violated guidelines, often given to companies that Liberal MPs or their friends owned. We must learn from the past. Those warnings cannot be ignored.

Furthermore, if the Liberals realize that a handful of supposed nation-building projects would help our economy, why can they not understand that hundreds of these projects across our nation would put this country back on track, where it needs to be, and take care of our seniors, pave our roads and fix our health care? We would not even need Bill C-5 if the government were to repeal Bill C-69, which blocks pipelines projects through this country, and Bill C-48, which cripples our offshore industry. We would not need Bill C-5 if the Liberals had never implemented the production and emission caps that are choking our economy or if we had never had the last Liberal decade because we would have had one of the strongest economies in the world. We have everything in this country to succeed, except for good leadership.

I grew up in a Canada where an average kid from Clarenville could have endless possibilities. He could run for student council and one day be the MP, or he could start pumping gas and dream of one day owning that gas station and be an oil tycoon, just like “Old Man” Irving. Bill C-5 would kill this dream and many more just like it.

Bill C-5 tells young Canadians that, if they want to build something, they have to be pals with the people at the top. It is a perfect fantasy for Canadian oligarchs. That is not the Canadian dream. It is a nightmare of privilege. It replaces merit with connection, potential with politics and small-town hope with big-city gatekeeping. We need a Canada where every company and every person has equal opportunity, and we need a smaller government to make way for bigger citizens.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 1:30 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who sits on the transport committee with me, for his speech today. The government likes to talk about one national economy, yet we see in the second half of Bill C-5, and the Prime Minister has said publicly, that provincial premiers are going to have a veto. That means 13 different economies by its very nature.

Could the member expound upon whether he finds there is a contradiction here in what the government says and what it legislates?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 1:30 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that my Conservative colleagues are not very satisfied with Bill C‑5. It is an understatement to say that we are not either, because we are more than dissatisfied. We are deeply concerned about what is in this bill.

Given that the Conservatives themselves are dissatisfied, why are they in favour of fast-tracking a bill that will make major changes to the way projects are approved?

More importantly, will we have the time to do things properly, since closure will not allow us to carry out a serious study?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 1:15 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me say off the top that I will be splitting my time with a great new member, the hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

Since this is my first time speaking for a substantive length of time since the election, please allow me to thank the hard-working, industrious people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North for the honour of being their voice and their servant and for carrying their hopes and dreams to this place. While I have lived and worked in other places in North America in my career, I have always felt and known that the communities of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North are my true home, and home is where the heart is. It is the honour of my lifetime to serve these great communities. I want to thank my campaign team, including Simon, Mona, Jordan, Wendy, Jim and hundreds of volunteers. Above all, I thank my wife, Tracy, without whose love and support I certainly would not be here today. I will now go to the matter at hand.

Canadians are struggling, not because we lack talent and not because we lack resources, but because we are too often being held back by red tape, gatekeeping and a government that over-promises and under-delivers. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to getting big projects built or trying to move goods and services and workers across provincial lines in our own country. These barriers do not cost us only time and money; they also cost us opportunities, investments and jobs.

That is why Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, is such a missed opportunity. It claims to deliver free trade and fast-tracked projects, but the reality is it would deliver bureaucratic theatre; it is a showpiece of announcements without the substance to back them up.

Let us start with part 1 of the bill, the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act. The premise is good. Canadians should be able to work and trade freely across the country without unnecessary federal barriers. However, the scope of this section is minuscule. It would affect a tiny subset of goods and services. In fact, during government briefings on the bill, one of the few examples offered was clean energy labels on washing machines, which is certainly underwhelming.

There is no comprehensive list of affected items. There is no plan to deal with the biggest trade barriers, no mechanism to assess progress and no timeline. There is no effort to create a blue seal licensing standard that would allow skilled immigrants and professionals, such as doctors, nurses and engineers, to work in the province next door, despite meeting rigorous national standards. Therefore, this was a missed chance to unlock the talent that is already here in this country.

There is also a missed opportunity to incentivize the provinces to remove their own barriers. The most effective governments are those that find ways to align incentives, not those that just issue guidance and hope for the best. That is why Conservatives have proposed a real solution to offer financial bonuses to provinces for every interprovincial trade barrier they eliminate. It would be a win-win-win. It would boost GDP and increase federal revenues. In fact, economists estimate that removing interprovincial trade barriers could add as much as $200 billion to Canada's economy; yet, instead of seizing that opportunity, Bill C-5 takes a baby step. It scratches the surface when Canadians are looking for bold, transformative reform.

Part 2 of the bill is the building Canada act. The most revealing part of this section is not what it proposes but what it omits. It is an admission by the government that its own laws are the problem and that Liberal legislation, such as Bill C-69, the shipping ban and the energy cap, are laws that have tied our economies in a knot. The Liberals know it, investors know it and workers know it. The bill is the Liberals' workaround, a way to admit failure without fixing the root of the problem. The bill tries to create selective escape hatches for a few lucky projects, but it would keep all the red tape in place. It is a patchwork solution for a broken process.

There is no clarity on which projects would qualify, no defined criteria for what would constitute the national interest and no certainty for investors or communities. It is just another layer of bureaucracy and a lot of discretion left in the hands of ministers. Even with the promise of a two-year timeline, provincial vetoes would remain, and the sunset clause would limit the use of these powers to just five years. How is anyone supposed to plan long term?

Here is the most frustrating part. The Liberals are essentially picking and choosing which projects get exemptions, without fixing the laws that block everything else. If they can fast-track one project, why not all deserving projects? Why not fix the system for everyone, not just the politically connected few? Canadians do not want political favours. They want fairness, they want clarity, and they want to build. That is why Conservatives support real reform, one-and-done approvals, a national energy corridor and shovel-ready zones with clear timelines and firm standards. We believe all worthy projects should be able to proceed, not just the ones that win favour from this week's minister. We have the people and the expertise in Canada. We have the resources. What we need is a government that believes in Canada's potential again.

Let us talk about the broader context. Canada has posted the worst growth in the G7 over the last decade, yet we have all the national resources in the world. We have everything the world wants. At the same time, we are selling our energy to the United States at a discount. Our farmers, miners and builders are being boxed in by the federal government. Global demand for energy, food and raw materials is surging. Other countries are stepping up, but Canada is standing still. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said it well: “internal trade barriers still act like a [self-imposed] 21% tariff.” What did we get from this bill? We got a couple of washing machines.

Meanwhile, U.S. tariffs have turned a simmering problem into a full-blown crisis. Canadian workers and exporters are caught in the middle, and the government has no answer. Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business summed it up when he said the spirit of this bill may be positive, but in practice, it will not move the needle.

We could be leading the world. Again, we have everything the world wants. Eighteen LNG projects, as has been mentioned, sat on Trudeau's desk awaiting approval. Germany, Japan and other countries came looking for our LNG. We could have been helping get the world off coal and replacing European dependence on Russian natural gas, yet the Liberals turned the German chancellor away and said there was no business case. Will this be more of the same?

This is not just about economics; it is about sovereignty, national unity and building a future where Canada leads in so many sectors as we are capable of doing. It is about restoring the Canadian promise to generations that feel abandoned by their government. Conservatives will not stand in the way of the minor progress of this bill, but we will not pretend the bill would deliver what it claims. We will work in committee this week to strengthen it, seek real amendments and keep pushing for solutions that go beyond optics and tackle the root cause of stagnation. Canadians do not want more red tape and more process. They want paycheques, they want purpose, they want projects to get built, and they want to be proud of this country and what it can do, once again.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 1:15 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right that Bill C-5 is not a fix; it is how to get Liberal insiders on a select list of projects that will get done. This is ethically challenging, and it opens up a litany of opportunities in which insiders are going to get rich, once again, because of the Liberal government. It will pick winners and losers, versus letting the market decide.

To the example that you raised on Bill C-69 and on ways to save it, we do need regulations and we need protections, but what we do not need is what we currently have, with which nothing is getting done. We are in a crisis in Canada, and the Liberals do not have the answers, because they are the ones who actually messed up this country so badly.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 1:15 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether members caught all that, but Ottawa has messed things up in our provinces and has dictated to the provinces in their jurisdictions. The courts have ruled how unconstitutionally Ottawa has been treating our provinces, and that includes Quebec and Saskatchewan. Now with Bill C-5, if someone is a Liberal insider, they are going to be successful in this country. It is the Liberals' track record, for the last 10 years, that if someone was a Liberal insider, they made cake. For everyone else, it is too bad, and that—

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

June 16th, 2025 / 1 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Mr. Speaker, this is a case study on how not to build a nation, how to destroy a country from within. To understand how bad this bill and the government are, we need to understand how we got here if we are ever going to get through this as a country.

Since day one, the Liberal Party of Canada has been trying to reshape Canada into this weird reality. Many Canadians do not recognize this country, a postnational state that does not have an identity. Over the past decade, Canada has had the worst record on economic growth in the G7. For every category, Canada is dead last because of Liberal policies that have weakened our country and made our citizens poorer.

There are countless stats to confirm how far we have fallen. Just look at the over two million people in our country relying on food banks every day just to sustain themselves. This has been caused by Liberal inflation because of terrible policies like printing money, but maybe more importantly, it has also been caused by the laws the Liberals have enacted to ban growth within Canada, such as Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and the tanker ban. This has real-world implications; there is real Canadian suffering. I am also thinking of youth, who are facing record unemployment right now. Whole generations have given up on the dream of ever owning a home. The Liberals want a nation of renters. We are a country in decline because of the terrible policies of the government. It is almost as if in every way possible, the Liberals have made us more dependent on the state.

We do not talk enough about natural resources in Canada. We should be a stronger nation because of our foundation built on natural resources, but that will never happen while the Liberals are in power. The “keep it in the ground” gang has kidnapped our once proud country. We used to build in Canada. We used to celebrate new production in Canada, not cap it. Our citizens are hard working. We are a country, or used to be a country, of doers. After a decade of decline, the terrible Liberal antidevelopment laws have killed communities across our country.

As a country, we have spoken endlessly about the north and the importance of protecting and growing our presence in the territories, but because of new Liberal regulations, the north is hurting. This bill would not address that. I have travelled to the north. I have heard first-hand how Bill C-69 has stalled and ultimately killed every new mining project in the territories.

I have been told that in the territories there are two main types of jobs: people can work for the government on the taxpayers' dime or they can work in the mining sector. The government has stalled and changed regulations so that no mines are currently being built in the territories. Soon, there will only be government jobs, and all those mining jobs will be evaporated. Everyone is just going to get on the payroll of the government. That is the strong country the Liberals are building, a country that happily fires its own citizens and ships production and jobs to foreign countries. The Liberals have made our economy more beholden to foreign interests and have made a weaker Canada.

Because of Liberal anti-pipeline policies, we do not have ways to move our product to market. This results in America buying our oil at a discount. The citizens of this country own the resources in the ground, all the resources. No one special group has more say over them. We are the owners, not the corporations and not the government; the citizens are, for our benefit.

However, this once great country, which owns these resources, has a government that wants to keep them in the ground as long as it can. The manager of the resources, the government, has done a lousy job in managing our assets and our inheritance for the next generation. These brilliant Liberals have layered on so much regulation that pipeline companies such as Brookfield invest in pipelines around the world but not here in Canada. It is elbows up against our own people and resources.

We have closed all growth opportunities to export the product that we all own, making it easier for Americans to literally have us over a barrel. We have forced ourselves to sell to the Americans for a discount on every barrel of oil. It is upwards of $15 on every barrel that we just give away because of the crazy policies the Liberals have enacted for our country.

If we add that up with the millions and billions of barrels of oil, there is the money to reinvest in schools, hospitals, highways and true infrastructure. We would have the revenue because our economy is growing. We would have the ability to get our product to market, but not under the Liberals.

The Liberals have a record of selling out our country for what they claim is the environment. We might just stop that for a minute. The whole idea is that we have to keep it all in the ground and stop everything to save the planet, but just on the oil and gas equation, if the whole world would use oil from Canada, our emissions as a planet would go down by 25%. I am not sure whether they are hurting our country more or the environment more with their crazy Liberal policies.

It gets even worse when we talk about LNG. There is not a country in the world that would not want what we have, but we have squandered this opportunity. This is the worst missed opportunity in a generation. I am so embarrassed for our country about what has happened.

When the Liberal government formed government 10 years ago, there were 15 LNG plants lined up for Canada. There was not a single taxpayer dime in these projects; it was all private investment that would have driven our economy for a decade. These projects were billion-dollar projects located in coastal communities desperate for well-paying jobs that would allow families to buy a home, raise some kids and retire in a safe community. Those paycheques would have come from liquefied natural gas plants.

Unfortunately, the Liberals changed the policies, and only one is progressing. We still do not have it up and operational. If we remember the resource that is in the ground, the natural gas, it is owned by all of us. With what we are doing right now, if we are going to sell an ounce of natural gas outside Canada, it goes to our only customer, the United States of America.

America is our sole customer for natural gas. It takes our gas, transports it in the capacity that we do have in pipelines to the States, and it goes to liquefied natural gas plants, some of which are for the same companies that were proposing those plants in Canada. After the Liberals said no, they went to the States.

We send our gas to the States, and the Americans get the profit from liquefying it and selling it around the world. The profit and the jobs go to the Americans because of Liberal policies. This is the country the Liberals have built. All those jobs and opportunities have been lost to America because of Liberal regulation.

After a decade of crazy Liberal policies that have weakened the country, these crackerjacks are proposing to fast-track a limited number of nation-building projects. It is like Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

I hope families are not waiting. If someone is in one of the many families that have their careers tied up in a project that is waiting for approval from the government, this is the Willy Wonka magic golden ticket they are claiming. If they are waiting for that, I hope their project will go ahead. This is the kind of sweepstakes the Liberal government thinks is the best way to build a nation.

We have a country desperate for growth and all the good things that flow from economic activity. The Liberals only want a handful of those opportunities. This is limiting Canada's growth. The Liberals have weakened our country at the worst possible time. The government has had 10 years to improve interprovincial trade, but it has not.

The Liberals have benefited from a divided federation, so no one believes it when the Prime Minister says that the barriers will be coming down by Canada Day. Frustrations with Liberals have never been higher in Saskatchewan, and for good reason. Many families I know work in the uranium sector and do not trust Bill C-5 or what the government is up to.

Nuclear energy and uranium mining has been stalled in our country because of layering of multiple regulations. If we want to build a nation, I have a project for us. It is ready to go. It is the NexGen Rook 1 project. There are 1,300 high-paying jobs in northern Saskatchewan ready to go. It would result in over $10 billion in government revenue.

This is the project. This is one of thousands of projects across Canada that could actually build a nation. I plead with the Liberals to please put Canada first for a change and get this project done. This is just one of the uranium mining projects that are on the go in Canada and northern Saskatchewan.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 1 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Conservative colleague a question.

Since I became a member of this House, I have often seen the Conservatives get all worked up about Liberal corruption and collusion scandals, whether real or imagined. I will not hide the fact that I do not necessarily have the highest regard for the work ethic of the government and the Liberal Party. However, proposed section 21 in Bill C‑5 allows any major national project to be exempt from any law in Canada.

Is my colleague not concerned that the government could circumvent crime and ethics laws to save its own skin?

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

June 16th, 2025 / 12:45 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Saskatoon—University.

This is my first speech in the House, and I would like to thank all the supporters from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

This takes me back to how I got started in politics in the first place. It is ironic, because as a first nations member in Kitimat, where I come from, I got my start on the environment file, meaning that we were trying to repair the damage done to our territory over the last 70 years: damage to the river, damage to the forest and damage to the air. That took up the bulk of our time. At that time, I had to research what an environmental assessment was, what a permit was and what aboriginal rights and title were. This took me years, as a labourer, at a time when the Internet was not readily available to us. We had one computer in our condemned band office, which used to be a residential school. It was hard. It took years to understand this, and nobody in my organization could really explain to me the full extent of what an environmental assessment was. Now, I am back. Over the years, I used to think about all this information in my head being useless, because I thought nobody cared and I could not use it anymore, and then I end up here, talking about the same things I was talking about in 2003, but this time it is flipped.

Canadians should understand that Bill C-5 is in two parts. One is about breaking down provincial boundaries, and I will not be talking about that. I will be talking about the second part, the exemption from environmental assessments in Canada.

The environmental assessments are responsible for LNG Canada, the largest private investment in Canadian history, being built in Kitimat to the highest standards, with transparency and accountability. Everybody understood what was going to happen, because there were federal and provincial authorities involved. More importantly, what strengthened that process was aboriginal rights and title. All first nations from Prince George to Kitimat were part of that process. We all got it; we understood it. There was an emergency of sorts back then, a crisis. Aboriginals were in poverty, and the violence of poverty goes along with that.

Now we have a new crisis, but nobody on the government side is talking about some of the conditions that led to this crisis in the first place. Bill C-69, that extensive bill with all those words in it, actually shut down the building of pipelines. There was also Bill C-48, the ban on tankers coming off the west coast of British Columbia.

The weakened state we are in, and the reason Bill C-5 is on the floor in the first place, is because of tariffs. However, I will go further and say that Canada has lost its place in the geo-energy world, the geopolitical world and the geo-economics world, and it was all self-inflicted. I mean, forget about the tariffs for a second and just think. Without a strong economy, we have a weak country. That is just basic, simple math. It is just common sense, and first nations understand this.

We are now talking about Bill C-5, which would basically exempt major projects from environmental assessments at the federal level, but it would not reduce or eliminate them at the provincial level. It is yet to be seen how much time would be reduced. There is no word on how the federal government will actually replace the consultation and accommodation of aboriginal rights and title, which are protected by section 35 of the Constitution. These processes have been in place, in formation over decades, but now, in one day, we are going to wipe that all out. We are going to say, “No, we don't need an environmental assessment.”

I agree that environmental assessments take a lot of money. They take a lot of time, and they are risky. We could do all the work we want and still not receive an environmental assessment certificate, not to mention what will happen if we have a harmonized environmental assessment with the provinces. There are so many different ways to say yes and no.

Now we are getting that from B.C., which will say no to pipelines, so what we are talking about here is almost a waste of time. If we do by some miracle get to a point where we get a pipeline approval, we are going to end up in court, because there are a tremendous number of gaps proposed by this bill. They were in place when I started in council in 2003, back when we were trying to figure out not only how we make our way in a new world as first nations, but how to strengthen the environmental standards in B.C. and Canada and get B.C. and Canada to live up to the conditions in a permit. That took a lot of work. When first nations say that they strengthened the permitting regulations and environmental assessments and used rights and title to do it, it cost first nations a lot of time, money and political capital, because we were trying to balance economics with the environment and the welfare of our people over the next 50, 100 or 150 years. It was difficult.

In Kitimat Village, we reached a happy medium where everybody benefited, not just first nations. Even our neighbouring first nations benefited, but on the basis of the processes in the province of British Columbia and Canada. We figured it out.

Yes, environmental assessments cost money, an incredible amount of money. For a major project, I recommend to proponents that they better have $50 million of disposable money just to get their certificate, with no guarantee they would get their certificate. Bill C-5 is now saying the government will forego an environmental assessment and give an exemption if it is politically acceptable to it. That would cut down on time and money, but how many groups will be lobbying the government to get on that exemption list? How will the government ensure that the lobbying is done openly, transparently and fairly?

We just went through a debate about contracts issued to a company to the tune of $60 million-plus where processes were in place to ensure there was no fraud or corruption with respect to the contracts being issued. We still have not gotten that resolved. What are we going to do when a $30-billion project comes down the pipe, or a $40-billion project? None of this makes any sense to me, except that there will be no environmental assessment for a major project unless, the way I see it, we find ways to cut corners. Where are we going to cut corners? We are already going to do it with the environmental assessment, but surely we are not going to cut corners with aboriginals on aboriginal rights and title, consultation and accommodation.

There are a lot of first nations that understand this process, but what is number one to the first nations in my area is to address the environment first. That is what we do, and we use our rights and title to do it. We understand there are jobs, money, training and everything associated with a project, but we have to address the environment first. The best way to do that is to engage in an environmental assessment. Usually, aboriginal rights and title run parallel to environmental assessments, both provincially and federally, but if there is no environmental assessment, then what is the process? How will aboriginals ensure that projects are done to the highest standards? We have always bragged that Canada has the highest environmental standards in the world. How do we ensure this with Bill C-5 going forward?

There are many questions here, but the Liberal government just proposed closure, meaning we will not get to debate this bill in full. It was tabled last week. I have never come across a bill this extensive and we only have a week to debate it. Not everybody is going to get up and get a chance to talk on behalf of their riding. Canada has to hold the government accountable. It has to know what is happening with Bill C-5 and the future for the next five, 10 or 20 years, because exemptions are going to be a big issue.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 12:30 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to rise in this House today on behalf of the people of Mississauga East—Cooksville. It is a pivotal time for our country and for Canadian families alike.

I would like to congratulate all the dads out there for a belated happy Father's Day. They do a great job.

Canadians sent us here with a clear message to make life more affordable, to make our economy work for everyone and to bring this country together stronger, fairer and more united than ever before. That is exactly what our government is doing. When I speak with a young couple in Mississauga trying to buy their first home, a small grocer who wants to expand their business across provincial lines or a retired couple feeling the pressure at the checkout line, one thing is clear: Canadians are looking for action and not slogans. They are getting that action through bold, focused leadership under our Prime Minister and our new government.

This is not just about responding to challenges; it is about seizing the opportunity. Today, all eyes are on Kananaskis, Alberta, as Canada hosts the G7 summit. This is a moment to showcase what makes Canada strong: our resilient middle class, our clean and conventional energy leadership, and our commitment to building a modern, unified economy where no one is left behind. We will stand on the global stage and show the world that Canada is not just keeping up; we are leading.

Here at home, we are moving quickly to deliver real relief for Canadians. Bill C-4, now before this House, delivers on the 2025 campaign promise to cut taxes for the middle class, reducing the lowest tax bracket. That would mean more money in the pockets of 22 million Canadians, up to $840 a year for a two-income family. This relief would start on July 1, so the time to act is now. Families cannot afford delay; they need this support and they need it now.

We are not stopping there. We are tackling the housing crisis with a targeted GST exemption for first-time homebuyers on homes up to $1 million. This would be especially impactful for families in cities like mine of Mississauga. We are helping young Canadians enter the housing market while investing in housing supply to make sure the next generation has the same shot at success.

This past weekend, I had the honour to attend a Luso charities event, which raises vital funds for individuals living with cognitive disabilities. What stood out to me was not just the generosity in that room, which was tremendous, but that there were developers, union leaders and construction workers. People from every corner of the building sector came together for a common purpose.

Do members know what they told me? They said they are optimistic. They believe in the direction our country is going, the way we are headed. They know that by working together with government, community, industry and labour, we can build the homes Canadians need while creating good jobs and delivering inclusive, progressive growth. This is what nation building looks like, and it starts with partnership. This is what it means to build fairness.

Now let me speak about trade, infrastructure and opportunity, because these issues are deeply connected. It was a busy weekend this weekend. I also had the pleasure of attending North America's biggest halal food festival, right in the heart of Mississauga. Fifty thousand people came out, including families, entrepreneurs and business leaders from across our country. Amir Shamsi, the founder, took me around to speak with many of the businesses. Built from the ground up, many of them are newcomer-run, women-led or youth-run. They told me they were ready to grow. They want to move their products across provincial borders and access new markets abroad, but right now they are hitting red tape, different standards, fragmented rules and unnecessary costs. We need to fix that.

That is why Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, is so important. It is vital that we do this. The bill tears down those barriers, creating one unified marketplace across Canada. It helps small and medium-sized businesses, like those at the halal food festival, expand faster, hire more workers and compete globally.

Trade policy is not enough. Nation-building infrastructure is the backbone that supports our economic growth. That is why Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, would help unleash strategic trade and energy corridors, projects that connect our natural resources to markets, our businesses to ports, and our goods to global demand.

We need to modernize Canada's ports, from Halifax to Vancouver, to handle large volumes and higher efficiency. We need to expand rail and highway infrastructure to reduce congestion and speed up delivery. We need to build clean energy corridors that will move electricity across provinces, so that Canadian power can fuel our homes, our factories and our vehicles from coast to coast to coast. This is how we unlock the full potential of the Canadian economy, by investing in the hard infrastructure that makes trade real. This is inclusive, bottom-up trade, where the benefits start with the people on the ground, in places like the great place of Mississauga, and ripple outward across our country.

At our borders, where economic and national security meet, we are acting with Bill C-2. The bill would modernize trade routes, strengthen enforcement and stop the illegal flow of guns and drugs, while speeding up the legal flow of goods. That is good for safety and good for business, and it is essential for a modern economy.

These are just bills, but they are all part of a unified vision, a 2025 Liberal vision, a Liberal plan that Canadians voted for: tax relief for working families; housing access for the next generation; strategic infrastructure to support trade, innovation and energy; a clean economy that grows with people-powered innovation; and a strong Canada united from coast to coast to coast.

It is a plan to build on economic expertise, empowered by the values that Canadians hold dear. We have a Prime Minister with real-world experience in global finance and public service, who held a job as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, as well as the Governor of the Bank of England. This person comes with this experience and brings us all together to a new government, a cabinet team that reflects Canada and delivers for Canadians.

Members have probably heard the announcement that Michael Sabia will be the incoming Clerk of the Privy Council. We have someone, again, who understands both business and public policy and brings those together. He has done it in Quebec. He has done it across our country. That will help. It will help as we build our team Canada.

This Canadian team, working together with all of us, and I say all of us because I speak to all members in the House, our provinces, our territories, our indigenous partners, the private sector, labour and 41 million Canadians, will unlock Canada's full economic potential. That is what real partnership and real leadership look like. What unites all of this is simple. We are focused on people: not partisanship, not posturing, but people.

This is how we restore faith in government, by showing that it can work and that it can deliver for our people. As we show the world in Kananaskis today, Canada is leading, not just with words, but with action. Let us build one economy. Let us support every family. Let us continue building a Canada that works for everyone. Let us build Canada strong.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 12:15 p.m.


See context

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Kody Blois LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join today's debate on Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy legislation. Before I get started, I want to recognize that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville this afternoon.

We are living in a very uncertain world. As I speak right now, there are missiles being exchanged between Israel and Iran. There is great tension in the Middle East. War continues to ravage Ukraine after three years of brutal Russian onslaught, naked aggression against that democracy that is simply trying to defend its sovereignty. Authoritarian regimes are on the rise. I think it is fair to say that this is probably the most uncertain time in the world, certainly since the Cold War; parallels can be made. It is the most dangerous time since World War II.

In the backdrop of all I just mentioned, and we could spend an entire debate talking about that today, the U.S. administration and the United States, our largest trading partner, regardless of one's partisan affiliation or ideological viewpoint, is seeking to re-establish and to reimagine the relationships it has in the world, with maybe less on multilateralism. It is certainly changing the relationship that the United States has in relation to trade.

We as parliamentarians sit in this place today with tariffs on Canadian products going into the United States that are unjustified and illegal. I am sure all members of the House would agree with that, but they exist. If someone is a steel worker in Hamilton, or if they are in Quebec or in the Soo, there is great uncertainty right now for our Canadian workforce, and particularly for certain industries across the country.

Canada is at a crossroads in terms of what we do next. The Prime Minister and the government were elected in April in part to be able to handle the world that we are living in and the economic uncertainty that has been presented because of all the factors I just laid out, and that brings us to the legislation that is before the House here today.

The Prime Minister has been very clear that we as Canadians can give ourselves so much more than anyone can take away from us as a country. The legislation that is being considered here in the House aims to do just that: It aims to ensure that we can strengthen our Canadian economy, which is under duress from U.S. tariffs and is facing an uncertain world for all the reasons I just laid out.

The bill seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to establish one Canadian economy, not 13. This has been a concept for quite some years, many decades in fact. It is fair to say that some Canadians, and maybe indeed some members of the House, could be cynical about the idea that we can break down the interprovincial trade barriers that cost Canadian GDP in this country approximately $200 billion. Twenty per cent of our national gross domestic product is from services, goods and products being moved within our federation, and for far too long, there have been impediments to that free mobility, the ability for products to move easily between jurisdictions or for the accreditation of professions and services in this country to be recognized among provinces, territories and the federal government.

That is exactly why the government has introduced the bill, which would remove all remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade. There are very few, but it is incumbent upon all of us, certainly upon the Prime Minister and the government, to show leadership such that the provinces and territories will follow suit. There is certainly political will right now, and Canadians are looking for their elected leaders to break down the barriers and make it easier to do business. Ultimately, this is about growing our Canadian economy.

Over the last 10 years, Canada has had the second-highest overall growth in the G7, but productivity remains an issue. This is something the Prime Minister and the government are serious about tackling, and they want to get started on this domain in earnest. The bill would help do that. The bill would help to break down barriers, to allow small businesses across this country to send their products east-west, as opposed to necessarily looking to other international markets.

I will give an example. I represent the Annapolis Valley, Kings—Hants, in Nova Scotia. There is an emerging wine industry there. It is easier for wine growers in Nova Scotia to send their bottles of beautiful handcrafted products to France than it is to send them to New Brunswick or Ontario. That is just one of the examples. How about the accreditation for surveyors? A surveyor who has accreditation in Ontario would have to re-register in order to work on a federal project in the same city. These are the types of things that we can no longer take for granted and not move on with a sense of urgency and action.

The bill is very clear and is only 25 pages long. The first half is dedicated to interprovincial trade and the mobility of workers in this country. I look forward to a member of Parliament's suggesting that is not a good idea, because I do not think it is what public opinion is, and I certainly do not think it is where public policy should be in the moment of the factors I just laid out to the House. We are going to be moving on it.

The bill would allow for federal regulatory agencies or departments to ensure that where there is comparable, and that is the word used, legislation in a provincial or territorial sense, it would receive the same accreditation as federally. That is important. The legislation lays the foundation. There would be a lot of heavy lifting to ensure that we can exercise that. The legislation is step number one. The sooner we can pass it through the House, the better.

The second aspect of the bill is that we need to get our economy going. We have major projects, and the world needs what Canada has, whether it is in critical minerals, agriculture or the forestry sector. We are blessed to have natural endowments and people with ingenuity, such that people around the world want our products and services.

On major projects, the government is delineating a process to be able to approve major projects more quickly. It is extremely important. Proponents have talked about wanting the ability to move faster on this, and the legislation would allow there to be a major national projects office with the Governor in Council and one minister who would set the conditions for the projects. The cabinet would have the ability, of course, to engage with indigenous partners, provinces and other stakeholders to identify major projects of national concern.

There are five criteria the legislation lays out. I want to cover them for all members of the House and for the public at home so they can understand what would actually constitute a major project in this country. A project would have to strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security. Obviously, it would have to have a clear economic or other benefit to Canada. It would have to have a high likelihood of successful execution in terms of the ability for a project to actually move forward and happen. It would have to advance the interests of indigenous people and contribute to the clean growth in Canada's objectives in relation to climate change. Those are the criteria the government would use.

There are a few things that are extremely important to highlight. I go back to section 35 rights and UNDRIP. There has been some concern outside the House that somehow this legislation would disallow or lessen the constitutional rights indigenous people are afforded in this country. That is not what is happening whatsoever. Any project that would ever find its way onto this list of national projects of concern would have to have involved deep consultation with indigenous people, and one of the actual provisions is that indigenous communities would have to be consulted as part of this.

Nothing from this bill would take away from UNDRIP, which the House passed. Nothing would take away from the ability of indigenous partners to actually benefit.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedGovernment Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 16th, 2025 / 11:25 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, as we said, this is a minority government.

Out of respect for the democratic process, I want to point out that people are watching us. A minority government requires consultations. That means going through all the democratic steps. We should keep sitting until July 15. We need to have a discussion.

We suggested splitting up Bill C-5, since there are a lot of things in it that we agree with. However, we do not intend to give the government carte blanche.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedGovernment Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 16th, 2025 / 11:25 a.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I remember standing in that corner when the Liberal Party was the third party in the House and its members protested so strongly against Stephen Harper starting to use time allocation on bills. It had happened, at that point, nine times in 40 years, then it began to be every bill, but nothing from the Harper government was as breathtaking as the programming motion put forward for Bill C-5.

I ask the hon. government House leader to reconsider and respect parliamentary democracy in this place.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedGovernment Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 16th, 2025 / 11:20 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Connie Cody Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are presenting Bill C-5, their so-called free trade and labour mobility in Canada act, as a serious effort to strengthen the economy, but once again, it is all promise and no plan. They promised homes, with none built. They promised pipelines, with none delivered. They promised a budget, which is still missing.

They have now tabled another bill filled with talking points but no mention of pipelines, no plan for infrastructure and no answers on how this will actually move our economy forward. It is the same Liberal formula: big talk, no delivery, no pipelines, no housing, no budget and just headlines.

If the government wants to unlock the economy, why are pipelines and major infrastructure missing entirely from this so-called productivity plan? Is this just another press release?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedGovernment Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 16th, 2025 / 11:05 a.m.


See context

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 was just introduced in the House for debate on Friday. We have only had a few hours of debate on it already. The Liberals are up to their old tricks again, trying to ram through legislation without giving Parliament the opportunity to debate this bill. We know that it would not repeal the “no more pipelines” act or the “no more tankers” act. We know that it would not help with anything in resource development.

Why are the Liberals back to their old ways of shutting down debate and undermining democracy?

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

June 13th, 2025 / 2:15 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that tariffs actually made Bill C-5 as presented to the floor. None of this really matters until we streamline all the legislation, regulations and jurisdictional issues currently in place.

My question is on process. As the government negotiates with the U.S.A. on trade, does the government negotiate provincial resources first, and then consult with provinces, or does the government get provincial consent before negotiating trade based on provincial resources? Which is it?

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

June 13th, 2025 / 1:50 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Guelph.

It is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-5 to create one Canadian economy. As this is the first time I have had the opportunity to rise in the House to deliver a speech since the election, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the great people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for putting their trust in me to be their representative. Whether someone voted for me or not, I take it to heart each and every day that I am here to represent them, to be their voice in Ottawa and to ensure that the diverse needs of our region are met and are reflected by our government.

I would not be here without the work of an incredible campaign team led by Morgan, Leo, Tess, Norman, Chloe, Lilah, Lea, Natasha, Maira, Kiran, Fei and so many more, including hundreds of volunteers from all regions in my riding. I thank them for their long hours, their dedication, their hard work, and their belief in me and the work that we are doing. This victory is as much theirs as it is mine.

I thank my parents and my sister for their support and want to give a special shout-out to my nephews Haiden, Beckham and Sawyer for bringing so much joy to the campaign. More than anything, I want to thank my wonderful partner, Anastasia, for being there with me and for me every step of the way. I know this is a hard job that requires a lot of sacrifice for me to be away from her and from our home, and it is much appreciated.

This year, our country has been faced with an unprecedented challenge in this lifetime with the election of U.S. President Donald Trump and the unjustified and illegal tariffs he has wrought on our country. It has been with a great sense of pride that our country has come together in defiance of this threat. As a country, we realized that we needed to diversify our trade around the world, as well as build up our internal markets by tearing down interprovincial trade barriers.

One of our government’s first orders of business since this election was to table the one Canadian economy act. Canada's strength has always come from its people, but too often, our economy has not reflected that same unity. Outdated trade barriers, and fragmented and balkanized regulatory systems have made it harder for Canadians to build, innovate and thrive. We have been working with 13 provincial and territorial economies instead of one Canadian economy, and that has come at cost.

Whether it is a trucker trying to move goods across the provincial border, a nurse seeking work in another jurisdiction, or a business in B.C. trying to sell into the market here in Ontario, the message that we heard has been the same: It should not be this hard to do business in Canada. The two parts of the one Canadian economy act would change that. First, the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act would remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility so that Canadians and businesses could move, work and grow across the country with fewer obstacles.

Right now, Canada is losing billions of dollars a year in productivity and economic output because of fragmented internal markets. A recent estimate from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute pegged the cost of internal trade barriers at up to $200 billion in lost GDP. That is not a rounding error. That is a missed opportunity the size of an entire provincial economy.

Further, studies have shown that removing these trade barriers could lower the prices that people pay for goods by up to 15%. Needless to say, it is imperative and a no-brainer to move ahead with these changes. That is just the macroeconomic picture. On the ground, it is even more frustrating. Small businesses looking to grow and access new markets across provincial lines face hurdles that feel arbitrary. Workers trained to national standards find themselves unable to cross provincial borders without getting recertified. Consumers are facing fewer choices and higher prices.

The core idea of Bill C-5 is this: If a good, service or professional qualification meets the regulatory standards of a province or territory and those standards are comparable to federal ones, then it should be recognized federally for the purposes of internal trade and labour mobility. Canadians increasingly want to buy local, and not just from their province. They want to buy Canadian. By supporting efforts to harmonize standards and expand inter-provincial sales, we are giving consumers more choice and local producers more reach.

Another area where we can expect gains is in the direct-to-consumer alcohol market. This would be a game-changer to ensure that we have the amazing wines and microbrews from B.C. available here in Ontario.

I want to acknowledge the work of our provincial and territorial partners. This is not a federal-only story, even if this legislation is only with respect to federal jurisdiction. From coast to coast to coast, provinces are taking initiative. They are reviewing outdated exceptions, simplifying regulatory frameworks and demonstrating a growing willingness to work together.

Nova Scotia's free trade and mobility within Canada act, Ontario's memoranda of understanding with six other provinces to harmonize standards and reduce red tape, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador signing bilateral agreements to improve co-operation, and B.C.'s economic stabilization act are concrete, collaborative steps that Bill C-5 complements perfectly.

Second, as the Prime Minister mentioned during the campaign, Canada needs to do things that have not been imagined or were not thought possible at a speed we have not seen before. We need to seize the incredible opportunities at our disposal and build nation-building projects, such as interprovincial electrical grid interties, to better trade within Canada, and invest in ports to diversify our trade away from the United States. The proposed mechanism to do that is the building Canada act.

This new act would allow a single minister, after consulting with the provinces and indigenous peoples, to declare projects in the national interest and pre-approve them subject to conditions geared to protecting the environment. The Prime Minister further declared that projects would not be declared in the national interest and imposed upon provinces that are not willing.

Make no mistake. Bill C-5 proposes extraordinary powers that are only justified in an extraordinary time. Many would agree we are in that situation today. However, I would like to point out a few aspects of the bill that should be studied at committee if it passes second reading.

First, while it is hard to think it was not that long ago, the first ministers' meeting from just a week and a half ago produced a rigorous list of criteria that would inform whether a project can be declared in the national interest. However, the way the legislation is written would allow for unnamed factors to also drive decision-making. This should be carefully scrutinized at committee.

Second, the legislation would give a minister the ability to exempt any national interest project from an existing law or regulation based on the advice of a minister. If this type of power is to be in the hands of a minister, it is important that there be disclosure and transparency in how that power is going to be used.

Third, the powers this legislation proposes are due to be valid for five full years. We are currently living in a crisis, an extraordinary circumstance brought on by the illegal and unjustified tariffs from President Trump. I absolutely believe that if we talk to steel and aluminum workers or workers in the automotive sector, they will confirm just that. However, this legislation is due to be in effect beyond that, beyond what will be at least one more federal election, and we need to consider how this legislation could be used in bad faith by a future government.

Where there are issues with existing environmental laws causing undue and unacceptable delays in permitting projects in our country, I believe they can be fully reviewed and amended, hopefully obviating the need for these measures in the future. When a small business in Squamish wants to ship products across the country, it should be able to do that without running into arbitrary provincial rules, likewise if a health care worker wants to practise in Sechelt.

I can see my time is running out. I thank all members for their consideration. I look forward to questions.

Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the WholePrivilegeGovernment Orders

June 13th, 2025 / 1:45 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, speaking of misleading, I rise with respect to the notice that I provided to you under Standing Order 48, concerning the statements that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources made in a committee of the whole on Wednesday evening.

In brief, the minister repeatedly denied, when questioned, that politicians would be empowered to pick projects of national interest under the Liberal government's project development legislation that is now before Parliament. However, that is the very essence of what Bill C-5 proposes to empower the government to do. As we know, it is a contempt to mislead the House of Commons or any of its committees deliberately.

I will therefore argue that the minister misled the committee of the whole, giving rise to a prima facie contempt. First, the minister's statements during the committee of the whole on Wednesday evening flatly contradict Bill C-5 itself.

I asked the minister, “how do political, hand-picked projects give investors certainty?” The minister replied, “the politicians do not pick the projects.”

I asked again, soon after, for clarity, “the minister said earlier, and kept trying to claim, that he does not approve projects, but his own bill says he does. Is that not true?” The minister answered, “I think what we said is that we do not pick the projects.”

These responses were clear and direct. They were answers to very specific questions about whether the minister himself would select projects deemed to be in the national interest through Bill C-5, and the legislation shows that he would.

Bill C-5 would explicitly give the minister the authority to approve or deny projects. This authority appears in several key provisions of the bill.

Part 2(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.

Further, clause 5(1) of the bill grants the Governor in Council and cabinet the authority to designate projects as being in the national interest, but only on the recommendation of the minister. It states:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project is in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend Schedule 1 to add the name of the project and a brief description of it, including the location where it is to be carried out.

The minister also holds the authority to remove projects from schedule 1. That power is set out in the deletion clause:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project named in Schedule 1 is no longer in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend that Schedule to delete the name and the description of the project.

These provisions, directly from Bill C-5, make it absolutely clear that the minister and the Governor in Council do pick the projects. That is the fundamental mechanism of the bill.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 82, provides a list of established grounds for contempt, including “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. This point is reiterated at page 112.

The importance of accurate information being provided to Parliament has been underscored in a number of rulings, including that made by one of your predecessors on March 3, 2014, at page 3430 of the Debates:

This incident highlights the primordial importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten.

Speaker Milliken shared a similar view in a ruling on February 1, 2002, on page 8581 of the Debates, when he said, “The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.”

There is a well-established test for determining whether deliberately misleading information has been provided, which, for example, the Speaker explained in his February 15, 2024, ruling, at page 21146 of the Debates: “It must be proven that the statement was misleading; it must be established that, when making a statement, the member knew it to be incorrect; and finally, it must be demonstrated that the member intended to mislead the House.”

In the circumstances, I would respectfully submit that all three branches of this test can be made out. First, the content of Bill C-5, which I cited earlier, plainly contradicts the minister's answers.

Second, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has been held up by the Liberal government ever since the spring's election as the man who is supposed to get major resource projects launched. There can be no way that he is not intimately familiar with the details of Bill C-5, the policy for which it stands and the government's intentions for how to put it into effect.

Third, we must recall the context of the minister's answers. He was intensely questioned on the floor of the House of Commons for four hours, on the Liberals' terrible record over the last 10 years in the resource sector and trying to defend and spin his Prime Minister's signature bill, which had already been attracting a significant degree of scrutiny from all corners.

In any event, intention is not something that, I would respectfully submit, requires ironclad proof like a confession. Indeed, the procedure and House affairs committee, at paragraph 15 of its 50th report, presented in March 2002, acknowledges that intention may well be a matter for committee investigation:

As [then clerk of the House] Mr. Corbett explained to the Committee, it is not uncommon for inaccurate statements to be made in the course of debate or Question Period in the House. The issue is whether the statements were made deliberately, with the intent of misleading the House or its Members. In the case where a Member later admits to having knowingly provided false information – as in the Profumo case – the issue of intent is clear. In the absence of such an admission, however, it rests with the Committee to examine all of the circumstances and determine whether the evidence demonstrates an intention to mislead.

Finally, there is just one further procedural point I should add. Generally speaking, questions of privilege that arise in a committee setting are supposed to come before the House only by way of a report from the committee first, but the nature of committees of the whole, which are single-event bodies, complicates the ability to raise concerns that arise out of their deliberations.

You will recall that in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the House frequently sat in committees of the whole. A similar question of privilege arose, on which Speaker Rota addressed this procedural angle in his July 22, 2020, ruling, at page 2701 of the Debates, “I accept that the particular circumstances of this situation, notably the challenge surrounding the committee of the whole format, do make it appropriate to bring the matter to the Speaker.”

In conclusion, I would submit that the necessary thresholds have been met here, allowing for you to make a prima facie finding. Should you agree, in order to allow for the error to be fully and properly cleared and to ensure appropriate respect for the overarching importance of government accountability to Parliament, to all of us who represent the people, I intend to propose referring the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for further consideration.

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 13th, 2025 / 1:40 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and got the impression that he has grievances against the government and that he disagrees with its actions.

Did I misunderstand? Is this member preparing to vote in favour of gagging debate on the important bill C-5?

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 13th, 2025 / 1:30 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to give a speech in the House of Commons, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to spend 30 seconds of my speech thanking my volunteers, my family, and my wonderful community for sending me back here for the third time to represent the great people of Northumberland—Clarke. I thank them all. Their contributions were immeasurable and amazing.

Now I am going to talk about the business of today, which is Bill C-5. Bill C-5 is divided into two different pieces of legislation or parts. The first is the free trade and labour mobility act in Canada; the second is the building Canada act.

The free trade and labour mobility act has also been divided into two. There are two major initiatives within it. Both have to do with federal standards. The first is to say that any product or service that is authorized or licensed by the province would now be recognized by the federal government. In a similar vein, any provincially recognized profession would now be recognized federally.

The second part of the bill is with respect to the building Canada act. The building Canada act has to do with getting projects built that are in the “national interest” of Canada. This legislation is quite ironic because it really says that all those walls, which were put in place over the last decade to stop major projects, would be removed if major projects were in the national interest. Why not just remove those walls to begin with? However, I digress.

Most of my comments will be about the free trade and labour mobility act. The member for Lakeland did a fantastic job. I recommend her short and pithy, but poignant, speech about the building Canada act to anyone who has the opportunity to check it out. She was right on point. However, when it comes to the free trade and Canada act, I think it is important to look at a little bit of context.

Members should remember that not too long ago we had a federal election. Of course, one of the major themes or discussion points in that election was what Canada's response would be to the Trump tariffs, to the pressure coming from perhaps limited access to our greatest trading partner. Both major parties said we should look at trading more within Canada. Numbers such as $200 billion were thrown out there as the amount of additional economic benefits that could come from eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and increasing trade within Canada.

I just want to read a couple of quotes from the Prime Minister on the election trail. On April 5, he said, “Our government has committed to remove all federal restrictions on mobility by Canada Day. Free trade in Canada. Free mobility by Canada Day”. On April 17, the Prime Minister said, “Secondly, to commit the federal government to do its part by Canada Day... So, free trade in Canada by Canada Day”. On April 20, the Prime Minister said, “Our government will do our part for free trade in Canada. We will legislate the removal of all federal restrictions by July 1st. Free trade in Canada by Canada Day”.On April 21, the Prime Minister said, “And we'll work with the provinces to make sure all our health care professionals can work anywhere in Canada, as part of a drive for free trade in Canada by Canada Day.”

It is pretty clear what the Prime Minister committed to. He committed to having no interprovincial trade barriers by July 1, specifically, neither provincial and federal. That is what free trade in Canada by Canada Day means. The reality is that that will not happen even if this legislation gets passed by July 1. The reason is that the scope of this legislation is so very limited. It is limited to products, services and occupations that are federal in nature.

The reality is that most products and services, or at least a large portion of them, are regulated by the provinces. Most occupations are regulated provincially. For example, if a nurse who was accredited in B.C. wants to move to Ontario, they have to be re-accredited in Ontario. This legislation will not affect that. There will be a very limited impact on labour mobility in Canada by July 1, even going forward. With respect to products and services that is also usually the case. The products are regulated at the provincial level. The barriers then stop interprovincial trade from occurring.

I have a spoiler alert to everyone out there: The Liberals have already broken a promise. We will not have free trade in Canada by Canada Day.

There was a much more sensible approach. Instead of misleading Canadians during the election, they could have done what our leader, Pierre Poilievre, did and actually have a plan that would work, that would deliver real financial and economic benefits for Canada.

The first part would be to incentivize provinces. What is happening here is that the government is failing to meet the moment. We had an opportunity. Often, crises come with opportunities. There was a silver lining. It was creating momentum towards free trade. We saw the premiers working on their own accord to tear down barriers, but the federal government could have had a big role.

In accordance with the Conservatives' campaign promise, the government could have provided financial incentive. It could have included in this legislation that if the provinces tear down x barrier, they will get this much more money from the federal government. The best part about this is that these types of benefits actually pay for themselves. As Trevor Tombe and others have written, the financial benefit of actually reducing barriers, and not just making a press conference or a show of it, is hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal government could share some of the benefit from that with the provinces, but it chose not to.

The other part is that the government could have worked with provinces to create that Blue Seal program, allowing nurses, doctors and other health care professionals to work from coast to coast. Instead, the government has sort of gone from elbows up to turn, tuck tail and run. It continues to walk away from anything that is difficult or hard. The government could have used the momentum it had gathered, worked with premiers who are more than willing. I must say, our premiers have done a great job in many respects to tear down these barriers, but federal leadership here would have been invaluable. However, once again, the government, well, it just does not do “hard”.

For example, one thing the government could have done to make major progress was work to eliminate various trucking standards. This may not sound like the fanciest or the most exciting topic in the world, but it is incredibly important, because nearly every product we receive that goes on the shelves goes in a truck at some point.

Right now, we have a myriad of different trucking regulations, from different weights to different safety restrictions. Some estimates put an increase in freight rates at 8%, affecting Canada's GDP by $1.6 billion. If we were able to get a harmonized or mutual recognition system in the trucking industry, that would literally make almost every product in our country cheaper. At a time when we see grocery prices going through the roof, and an affordability crisis, would that not be something great for Canadians to have?

The Prime Minister could have made bold decisions. Instead of these little baby steps along the way, he could have made bold steps, such as repealing Bill C-69, which would have allowed projects to be approved, which would have allowed those national projects that have forever stitched our country together, a country that started with the railroad that built our country. We need those national projects both for our economy and also to bring us together, to unite us. Those projects will continue to be extremely difficult in the absence of a repeal of Bill C-69.

Quite frankly, although the building Canada act may get more projects built, would it not be more sensible to instead tear down the framework of Bill C-69? The last decade has proven the government cannot get major projects in place. Build it down, restart the process, open up with a one-window project, not just for those who are friends of Liberal insiders but for all Canadians, for all proponents who are willing to throw down their hard-earned money in order to build national projects.

Instead of the Prime Minister rising to meet the moment, to eliminate all interprovincial trade barriers, to bring our country together, to make our country greater and more prosperous, the government decided to take the easy way out and make small revisions to interprovincial trade that will not accomplish it. Instead of saving the Canadian economy billions and creating more prosperity from coast to coast, it will merely be another photo op, another wrong step along the way towards interprovincial trade, towards making Canada a truly free trade zone.

Here is to free trade in Canada on the Canada Day when Conservatives have a majority government.

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 13th, 2025 / 1:15 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the fantastic member for Northumberland—Clarke.

Before I talk about the actual merits of Bill C-5, I want to set the stage a little. The so-called one Canadian economy act is being brought in allegedly in response to the threats from the south, from President Trump, but it is disingenuous, at best, to say that that is what this is about. The crisis that is facing Canada is really a result of the last 10 years of a pretty incompetent Liberal government, and I will just talk about a few facts to back that up.

Let us talk about housing. Housing prices have become completely unaffordable. Most young people do not believe that they will ever own a home in their entire lifetime. In Ontario, my home province, we now have one million people regularly using food banks. This is a shocking increase from what it was a mere 10 years ago, when the number of people using a food bank in Ontario was about 350,000. Over the course of a decade of Liberal government management of the economy, the number of Canadians who are using a food bank has more than tripled. It gets worse because, again, 10 years ago, the number of people who were full-time employed and using a food bank was about 8% of those using the food bank. It is now 25%, so that has also tripled.

This is the backdrop of what has been going on in Canada after 10 years of the Liberal government. The Liberals like to say that they are a new government, but in fact they are not. The government is almost entirely composed of the ministers who were responsible for the files that created the challenges that exist today.

Now, the so-called one Canadian economy act talks about labour mobility, which is a critical issue. For a tradesperson in Canada, it is very difficult to go from New Brunswick or Newfoundland over to Alberta, where there may be work, or from Alberta over to New Brunswick or Newfoundland, if they are looking for work. This is because there is no standard set of safety standards across the country. Each province has its own safety standards, whether it is about working in confined spaces or working from heights. People may have certifications in their home province, but those certifications would not be recognized when they move to another province for work. That is a problem, because it could take them three, four or five days to meet these allegedly different standards within their trade, and therefore people would be going three, four or five days without pay. I know. I have travelled across the country. I have met with skilled tradespeople in the unionized sector, and this is a huge problem. It is a big disincentive for people to actually travel across the country to go where the work is.

When the Liberals talk about how we need to remove these interprovincial trade barriers, labour mobility is a huge part, and there is a simple solution. It is one that we actually proposed in the election. We said we would create a blue seal standard for these things across the country, so if people are certified to work from heights in Ontario, if they met that standard, they could go from Ontario to B.C., because they would have met this new standard.

The problem that we have is that the government did not do that in this alleged labour mobility bill. The Liberals are not taking the real step. It is just another example of a lot of talk. It sounds good that they are going to improve labour mobility, but when we actually look at the bill, it would not actually do anything it says. It promises to improve labour mobility by recognizing provincial occupation certificates federally. That would not help the plumber who is trying to go from Ontario to B.C. for work. That actually would not do anything for them. It is the same thing with any other skilled trades. The Liberals had a real opportunity to do something to make the lives of working Canadians better and to make labour mobility easier, but of course they declined to do that, so this is a major miss.

When the Liberals are talking about how we need to get the economy moving, they should have taken real steps to improve labour mobility, especially in the skilled trades. Those of us who spend time meeting with our tradespeople, the people who build and maintain this country, know that there is often a boom-bust cycle to that. The projects may be booming in Ontario when they are not necessarily booming in Manitoba, so the ability to move from one jurisdiction to another in order to be gainfully employed is critical.

This is not a new issue. This has been talked about for almost a decade, but the Liberals have lacked the political will to actually create a standard that would be recognized by all provinces, a new federal standard in the skilled trades for those types of safety things, as I said, like working in confined spaces or working from heights. If the Liberals did that, they would open up labour mobility for our tradespeople at a time when they absolutely need it.

Projects that the Liberals say are going to be spurred along by this piece of legislation have been delayed for a long time; they are not moving forward. Many people in the skilled trades are finding it hard to be employed, but they could be employed if they could move from one province to another. This is an absolute failure by the government, which says it is a new government that will take on new challenges. The Liberals have absolutely walked away from the challenge of labour mobility with this piece of legislation.

While we talk about the challenges with people in skilled trades, I would be remiss, as the shadow minister for labour, if I did not talk about the Liberal plan for modular housing. The Liberals now tout this as the big solution to housing, which, of course, it will not be, but one thing it would do for sure is take away jobs from our skilled tradespeople, especially our unionized tradespeople involved in housing construction: the plumbers, the carpenters, the pipefitters. They are the ones doing all the work to build houses, and now the Liberals want to take that away and have modular houses built in factories where there will be no skilled trades. This is going to have a disastrous effect. We are not going to have Red Seal carpenters working in a factory to build modular homes. The members across are laughing, which displays their ignorance on how the trades work and the general disregard the Liberal government has had for trades, especially for unionized tradespeople.

This brings me to another point, which is that for the first time in Canadian history, there is no minister of labour. This is a pretty shocking discovery. The Liberals are going to say they have a guy; he is the Secretary of State for Labour. However, it is like the person who sits at the kids' table at the wedding. They are kind of there, but they do not really matter that much. They are not at the big person table, which is the cabinet table.

What have unions said when they describe this? Joseph Mancinelli from LiUNA said, “if the Canadian government wants respect from labourers, perhaps let's start with a Minister of Labour”. He went on to call it a “slap in the face”. This is what it has been described as. Even CUPE said that it is “not just disappointing, but frankly insulting.” When we look at the lack of labour mobility in the bill, which is allegedly supposed to help; when we look at the Liberals pushing for modular housing, which will push out the trades; and when we look at the fact that there is no minister of labour, people in the labour movement know exactly where the Liberal government stands. Do not even get me started on taking away the right to strike through section 107 referrals. This is a government that has absolutely no respect for labourers and unions in this country, and the labour unions know it.

Now, let us talk about the one aspect of the bill that I find particularly troubling, which is the ministerial designation. The minister would get to pick the proponents of these projects. How could we ever think this is going to go well from a government that was responsible for the green slush fund and GC Strategies? Now the Liberals would get to pick the people who get these billion-dollar projects.

Imagine the corruption and graft that will go on with a government that has been awash in nothing but corruption and graft for the last 10 years. This will be corruption unlike we have ever seen. The minister is going to say he is going to pick one company to do a project. Can members imagine the corruption that is going to go on? If GC Strategies was able to turn $60,000 into $64 million, what is going to happen with a $1-billion project that a minister gets to pick? The green slush fund was Liberal insiders giving money to other Liberals while the minister stood there and did nothing. Actually, no, that is not true; the minister got promoted. The ministers responsible for GC Strategies got promoted too.

What did the Liberals learn? It is that turning a blind eye to corruption gets rewarded, and now they say this is how they are going to create the one Canadian economy. Yes, it is going to be one Canadian economy for Liberal insiders who get to line each other's pockets with these big fat contracts, just as they did with the green slush fund and just as they did with GC Strategies.

The bill would unleash a tidal wave of corruption and graft that the Liberals will hand out to all of their friends. It is not what Canadians need. It is not what unionized workers need. It is not what tradespeople need. It is another big, fat failure by a corrupt Liberal government, not a new Liberal government but the same old Liberal government that is going to reward its same old buddies with these big fat contracts.

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 13th, 2025 / 12:55 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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

This is a critical time, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I do not think people realize the extent of it. The public does not understand, and neither do the members of this House.

We have only been sitting in this House for three weeks and the government is already imposing a gag order, even though it is a minority government. The bill under closure has not been debated. There has not been a single hour, a single minute, or even a single second of debate, and they are already imposing a gag order on us.

Normally, when a gag order is imposed, it is because Parliament is deadlocked or because there is a real emergency, a fire is raging and everyone agrees that it should be passed without a hitch. However, that is not the case here. What is worse, they want to impose a gag order on something that will be profoundly transformative. Passing this bill will radically change how the federal government functions and how major projects are approved once presented to us. That, too, is cause for concern.

Even more concerning is that the wording of the motion states, among other things, that parliamentary committees will have only a day and a half to examine the bill, and that witnesses will be heard at a time when it is no longer even possible to propose amendments. That is crazy, but that is what is being presented today and what a majority of members in the House seem prepared accept, on both the Liberal and Conservative sides. I am rather surprised by all of this, because it is a denial of democracy. The government is trying to ram through a bill that was never publicly debated. Almost no member of civil society has had the opportunity to carefully analyze or comment on the bill, including the media and experts in the various fields affected by the bill's provisions. The fact that the government is already imposing a gag order on us is really very serious and problematic. Keep in mind that this is a major bill, not some harmless little piece of legislation.

What is the aim of this two-part bill? We do not have a real problem with part 1, despite the somewhat provocative way in which the Liberals presented it. This part, which deals with the free trade of goods and services and labour mobility, is ultimately not a bad thing, since it involves the federal government withdrawing from certain jurisdictions. The federal government is recognizing provincial jurisdictions and telling us that it will not get in the provinces' way. The government is removing barriers. In fact, it is removing its own barriers. I personally do not want any federally imposed barriers, and I do not think many of my Bloc Québécois colleagues do either, so that is a good thing and we support it.

Part 2 is another story. That part requires a very thorough analysis, and that is why we really want to split this bill. Part 2 of the bill would essentially make it so that certain laws do not apply to major projects that are deemed to be in the national interest. What are those so-called national interest projects, and how will they be chosen? Well, we just do not know. The bill provides some indications, but it does not specify exactly what those projects are, nor does it define the criteria. The criteria in the bill are suggested criteria. They are recommendations. The minister can choose whether to consider them or not. It is up to him. That is absolutely crazy, but that is how it is.

In theory, the criteria are to strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security; provide economic benefits to Canada; have a high likelihood of successful execution; advance the interests of indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. However, these are non-binding objectives. The minister can basically do what he wants in terms of the application of these criteria. The decision is at his discretion. The minister makes a list, and that is that. He decides which projects will be exempt from the law.

How do projects get on that list? It is done by order in council. That means there is no public debate. No one can question whether it is a good or bad project. The minister can wake up one morning and decide that it is a good project. He does not need to ask anyone's permission. Actually, that is not quite true. He has to consult the first nations and the provinces, but all he has to do is consult them and that is it. He does not have to do anything else. He just has to consult them and that is the end of it. What does it mean to consult? It does not mean that everyone agrees. It does not mean that Quebec agrees to be steamrolled. It does not mean that the first nations agree to have projects imposed on them. It just means that someone talked to them about it first. That is all that it means. On the basis of consultation alone, the minister can decide that he has enough information to proceed with an order in council and make the project in question a priority. He can circumvent everything and disregard laws that we thought were unassailable.

What happens when a project is on a list? The project is automatically approved. It had not even been analyzed when the Governor in Council issued an order for the project to be added to the list and approved. It stops there, no public debate, no questions. Before it is even debated and reviewed, before any environmental assessments are done, without any regard for processes, the project is automatically approved. That is real progress.

What legislation would not apply to these major projects? There is a whole list in schedule 2 of the bill. There are 33 statutes, including the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Species at Risk Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, and the Impact Assessment Act. As if that were not enough, there are also regulations that are not automatically applicable to these major projects. We are talking about the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the marine mammal regulations, the port authorities operations regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations and the migratory birds regulations, 2022. That is scary enough. We might say that, with a list like that, anything goes.

However, that is not all. Clause 21 of Bill C‑5 states that the Governor in Council may, by order, add any other act or regulation to this schedule, without any public debate, without going through Parliament and without consulting anyone.

What could those acts be? What acts could be affected? It could be the Official Languages Act, and then bilingualism and francophone rights would no longer be respected. The government could add the Canada Labour Code and not comply with it for these major projects. It could no longer comply with the Income Tax Act and people would not have to pay taxes. It could no longer comply with the Criminal Code. That is not written in the bill and it does not say that the government will do that. However, if it chooses to do so, the way this bill is currently written would allow it. That is completely scandalous and unacceptable. I cannot believe that my peers in the Conservative Party of Canada, or anyone else, would support this and say that there is no problem, that they would hand the government a blank cheque and that the government could do whatever it wants for all eternity.

Worse still, it shows that this government is taking cues from the government south of the border. What we were critical of and what everyone wanted to be protected from was a government that acts arbitrarily, imposes its agenda without consulting or listening to anyone, and governs by decree. What we have before us is a government that wants to govern by decree. How are projects chosen? It is by decree. How are the criteria set? They are being set by the minister alone. How can existing laws not apply to major projects? They are excluded by decree. This government wants to govern by decree, and now it wants to impose a gag order. It is unacceptable for a Parliament to pass such legislation. This bill absolutely needs to be thoroughly studied in committee by experts. This bill undermines our democratic institutions and public institutions. Worse still, it would put this government in untenable situations where it could easily be influenced by lobbyists with their own particular agendas. The minister would be very susceptible to this, because there would be no one to block him and no checks and balances.

I could go on at length, but, unfortunately, I am out of time. In conclusion, I would say that shutting down debate on the motion before us is just one reason for that, so I would like to move an amendment that could make it a little better.

The amendment reads as follows. I move:

That the motion be amended:

(a) in paragraph (b)(ii), by replacing the words “at 3:30 p.m.” with the words “at 10 a.m.”;

(b) in subparagraph (b)(ii)(B), by replacing the words “until 5:30 p.m.” with the words “until 11:59 p.m.”;

(c) by adding the following after subparagraph (b)(ii)(C): “(D) the following people be summoned to appear as witnesses for a minimum of one hour each at one of the two committee meetings:

(i) the Prime Minister,

(ii) the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy,

(iii) the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade,

(iv) the Minister of Environment and Climate Change,

(v) the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations;”.

All those people could come explain the bill to the committee. We would also—

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 13th, 2025 / 12:40 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the Liberals and the Conservatives, who have so eloquently demonstrated, through Bill C-5, why Quebec needs to become its own country, even though even though we already had plenty of arguments to support that.

We are witnessing another blatant multi-party attempt at nation-building and using crises to further centralize power, which is second nature to Ottawa, as we have always seen throughout the course of history. In the past, it was railways that were used as a sign of national unity, and today it is pipelines.

Do the Conservatives plan to sue the Liberals for plagiarism?

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 13th, 2025 / 12:40 p.m.


See context

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting that the member opposite, probably more so than any Conservative member, and maybe she could even be the new leader of the Conservative Party at some point, tries to portray a false impression that in the Harper horror years, the Conservatives were able to develop an inch of pipeline to tidewater. They did not. Not even an inch of pipeline went to tidewater.

When we take a look at Bill C-5 and the April 28 election, it is important for us to realize that a very clear mandate was given to all political entities in this House to build one Canadian economy. Does the member not agree that the essence of—

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 13th, 2025 / 12:35 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, it probably would surprise people that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I have had a good working relationship from time to time, even though we, too, disagree on many different issues or the approach to them, based on our different perspectives and also on the differences between the people we represent. That is the wonderful democracy and diversity of Canada, is it not?

I absolutely, 100% agree with the member on this issue, just as we agreed about Bill C-69. It is specifically why I am saying that the Liberals must amend Bill C-5 to include transparency on the project list and to ensure that all the things they say the bill will do are actually in the law. As the member has pointed out, all that matters is what is actually in the law. Hopefully, we all can work together as opposition parties to get these guys to fix their workaround.

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 13th, 2025 / 12:35 p.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's respect in appreciating working with our friend from the Bloc Québécois. The Greens love working with the hon. member for Lakeland too. People will be surprised, perhaps, though not the member for Lakeland, to find that I voted against Bill C-69 because I think it is really terrible legislation.

One of the things that I think the member for Lakeland and I both believe, and we may find we agree, is that legislation around environmental review should be based on factual criteria that are established in law, not press releases, and that we should keep political discretion to an absolute minimum.

That said, I am wondering, since the member has read the legislation, Bill C-5, how on earth she can vote for it on this abbreviated bulldozer time frame.

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5Government Orders

June 13th, 2025 / 12:30 p.m.


See context

Calgary Confederation Alberta

Liberal

Corey Hogan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's comments. I particularly appreciated the list of suggested improvements. It certainly deserved more than 30 seconds in a 22-hour speech.

The member made the comment that facts do not always fit the narrative and that that was very concerning for her, so I just want to put a few facts on the table that she omitted in her speech.

From 2015 to 2023, global oil and gas production grew 5%. Over the same time, Canadian production grew 29%. That does not really sound like Canada falling behind the world; it sounds like Canada being a leader in the world.

From 2006 to 2015, the time of the last government, not a single pipeline was built. That is another fact that I think needs to be on the record.

Let us not talk about the past, because Bill C-5 is about building the future. It is about building the strongest economy in the G7. Even in a world that uses less oil, demand for Canadian oil will continue to grow, because we and our partners work in an environmentally and socially responsible way. My home province of Alberta understands this. That is why we were the first to introduce an industrial carbon tax in 2008—

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

June 13th, 2025 / 12:20 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Yeah, I am still going. Mr. Speaker, of course we Conservatives hope the government can show Canadians that big, audacious, nation-building projects can get approved and built in competitive timelines by the private sector, not by taxpayers. We take seriously our constitutionally bound duty and role to oppose, but we also take seriously our job to propose solutions in the best interests of all Canadians, so I will now. The Liberals will need to fix Bill C-5 and make it transparent, clear and certain.

Here is what Liberal amendments must address and clarify: the definition of national interest; transparency of the project list; fulfillment of the duty to consult, not an advisory board; concrete two-year timelines and a timeline on the final decision by cabinet after a recommendation; application of the Conflict of Interest Act and screens for politically connected insider proponents; and clarity about the mandate for regulatory reviews to monitor and ensure actual deliverables are achieved on time and on budget, hopefully not on taxpayers' backs.

The real, fundamental, permanent solution for confidence and certainty in Canada is to repeal, or amend significantly, all of the acts and policies that the Liberals admit, through Bill C-5, are barriers to build, and not on a short-term, ad hoc, case-by-case basis, almost all of the details of which would be determined after the bill is law, through policy and regulations. That means politicians and bureaucrats would do all of this secretly and differently with each project. I guess that approach fits, since neither the Prime Minister nor the minister seem to be fond of answering questions from Canadians, or maybe just from women. They both constantly repeat that they will not negotiate in public about their interactions with the U.S., which, by the way, Canadians deserve to know about. Their MO already seems to be just like the old guys. It is backroom deals, and that is what Bill C-5 is.

The government should cut Canada's industrial carbon tax that punishes hard work, which none of our main competitors have. It smothers Canadian steel, aluminum, natural gas, food production and cement. It chokes competitiveness and forces companies to lay off workers, move operations abroad and leave towns behind. That is not “think globally, act locally” environmental stewardship; it's economic self-sabotage. A Canadian government should put Canadian workers, Canadian industries and Canadian producers first.

The government should set a clear six-month target, with a one-year maximum, to approve major projects, just as Conservatives proposed. Investors cannot wait 10 years for answers or keep giving the same information repeatedly to regulators to be denied or sent back to the beginning at any time. Delay means defeat. Projects need certainty. Workers need timelines. Resources need action. The government must stop talking and start approving. Canada needs a Canada-first, multi-use, national energy corridor and shovel-ready economic zones to unlock our potential, east to west, north to south, pipelines, power lines, highways and rail built to connect, not divide, built to move resources from the source to the world, built for Canadian prosperity, sovereignty and unity.

Conservatives believe in common-sense solutions. Without a doubt, Canadians deserve better. They deserve strong paycheques, real jobs, energy independence, self-sufficiency, security and national unity. Only Conservatives have fought to achieve Canadians' ambitions and to restore Canada's promise through responsible resource development, every single day, in every single way. Only Conservatives will stand with the workers who power this country, the families who depend on them and the businesses that need them. Conservatives will fight for a real plan that unleashes Canadian potential, restores Canada's promise, strengthens our economy and builds a proud, united, powerful and self-reliant Canada.

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

June 13th, 2025 / noon


See context

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, as I said before question period, Bill C-5 is the opposite of inherent clarity and certainty. The Prime Minister and the minister both claim the projects that provincial and territorial premiers submit to federal politicians, who will then themselves determine whether they are in the national interest, will be approved within two years, except that there is not a single concrete timeline in this bill.

This is familiar because it is the same claim the Liberals made about Bill C-69, but they included much political interference and many tools for the commissioner or politicians to start, stop, extend and restart the reviews ad infinitum. There were no concrete timelines in Bill C-69 either, but in Bill C-5, the words “two years” literally do not exist.

Since the Liberals claim the bill is a reaction to U.S. energy dominance and economic threats so that they can start, just now, trying to make Canada stronger, they should also look at the U.S. timelines to make sure Canada can compete and beat the U.S. to approvals and to market. I am sorry to say that two years was definitely competitive with the IRA three years ago, when Conservatives first called for the Liberals to match it, and it still is overall, but the U.S. now has emergency permitting procedures that approve nuclear, oil and gas, mining and uranium projects on federal lands of between 16 and 28 days. Its overall regulatory process is also set to be expedited. If the Prime Minister says this is a crisis, he should match his action to this crisis.

Bill C-5 does not impose two-year timelines by law in Canada, but if policy decisions afterward do execute the two-year timetable Liberals promise, that may end up keeping Canada lagging behind anyway. I think it is safe to say that Liberals always and often do too little, too late. The process is entirely secretive; that means there is no clarity, timeline, certainty or trust in Bill C-5.

Indigenous leaders from all different perspectives are already raising concerns. I have to say that it was quite astounding to watch a colleague, one I admire very much, the former Enoch chief, Treaty 6 grand chief and current Conservative MP for Edmonton Northwest, question the minister about whether he understands and has consulted with indigenous rights holders. By the way, I come from Treaty 6 territory. The minister named important advocacy groups for indigenous people but quite obviously either did not know or could not affirm that he has consulted with actual rights holders and titleholders. Even though one of the factors is to advance the interests of indigenous peoples, he has not talked to them yet. He is a decision-maker, by his own law, and courts have been clear about the duty for decision-makers to be at the table with indigenous leaders and to make a dynamic effort to address and mitigate adverse impacts. I am not sure that the set-up of an indigenous advisory council will stand up to challenge. All Canadians should be concerned about this.

Meanwhile, Canadians wait, projects stay stalled in the queue, billions in investments sit idle and families lose out on good jobs because of Liberal delays, red tape and uncertainty. Bill C-5 does not fix the real problems; rather, it gives a way for a select, politically hand-picked list to circumvent all the laws and policies the Liberals previously, and elsewhere, argued are just critical and are the most crucial for the environment, economies, communities and indigenous people. These are laws that the Liberals howl about any time Conservatives dare to criticize, question or try to improve them. The list includes the Fisheries Act; the Indian Act; the International River Improvements Act; the National Capital Act; the Canadian Navigable Waters Act; the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994; section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act; the Canada Marine Act; division 3 of part 7 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; the Species at Risk Act; the Canadian Energy Regulator Act; the migratory bird sanctuary regulations; the Dominion water power regulations; wildlife area regulations; the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations; and the Liberals' own migratory bird regulations, 2022.

Let us be honest. If the Liberals now want to ignore these laws for their preferred projects, that confirms two things. First, these policies have stopped development for years. Second, even if the Liberals claim they will approve projects in two years, that claim matters only if the projects survive legal challenges after approval, so the proponents can build them on their own timeline and on their own dime.

What happens afterwards is also crucial. What happens when activists challenge the approvals and exemptions in court? From the list I just read, I dare say that there will be more than a few Canadian advocacy groups of all different kinds concerned about this plan. What happens when those approvals and exemptions are challenged? What happens when litigation and the weaponization of bylaws and laws from other provinces and other municipalities halt progress again? What will the Liberals do then? Will they attack their own laws or retreat and refuse to enforce federal jurisdiction, as they have done before, deliberately, to kill pipelines and other projects?

Bill C-5 raises more questions than answers, and Canadians deserve the truth. This bill sets up a process that will help a few and leave most behind.

On Wednesday, the natural resources minister said, “I think what we said is that we do not pick the projects.” However, he also said, “projects bubble up from consultations between the federal government, provincial government, indigenous peoples”. When I asked the same question again, about the ministers and cabinet as decision-makers, the minister said, “the politicians do not pick the projects.” However, it is clear from public communications after meetings with premiers that they are, and Bill C-5 clearly says:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project is in the national interest, the Governor in Council—

It is otherwise known as cabinet.

—may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend Schedule 1 to add the name of the project and a brief description of it, including the location where it is to be carried out.

Well, that language confirms that the minister plays a direct role and is the decision-maker. The minister can also remove projects from the list:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project named in Schedule 1 is no longer in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend that Schedule to delete the name and the description of the project.

That is some certainty. Despite the minister's claims, Bill C-5 shows that political discretion, his discretion, decides which projects stay or go, which project people win and which lose. Already one wonders whether the responsible minister, after my engagement with him on Wednesday night, actually even knows what is being proposed in his own bill.

Again, there is a public list of major resource and infrastructure projects ready to go, real projects with real proponents that could be deemed in the national interest and fast-tracked immediately. The 28 mining and energy proposals sitting in front of the regulators could be fast-tracked right now.

It is also curious that one of the acts the Liberal government could decide to sidestep through Bill C-5 is the Conflict of Interest Act. Of course, the Prime Minister refused to disclose his own conflicts or where he paid his taxes, and his businesses preferred to invest in pipelines and energy in the U.S. and overseas, not in Canada. Already, this sure looks like the same scandal-plagued, backroom-dealing Liberals, does it not?

It should also concern all Canadians that the plan in Bill C-5 is for most of the specifics to be dealt with through policy and regulations afterwards, not transparently and clearly in the law: more inherent uncertainty. This bill also mixes public and private infrastructure, while the ministers will not give details about the projects. Canadians would be wise to consider the lack of distinction and whether the Liberals will continue their state corporate financing schemes that always put taxpayers at risk while insiders benefit.

Canadians do not want backroom deals. They want a system that works. They want government to clear the path for Canadian responsible resource development by Canadian workers with Canadian materials.

The Liberals also keep talking about the need for consensus on projects, and they mean especially for pipelines. However, neither they nor Bill C-5 defines what that involves. Is it consensus from the anti-pipeline environment and culture ministers? Is it consensus from half the anti-energy Liberals who are still in the Liberal cabinet while they try to sound like Conservatives and are actually diametrically opposed to what they have said and done for a decade? I mean, it is amazing they can stand here and look at us with straight faces and do that.

The Liberals claim they want consensus, but Canadians know they do not even have it in their own cabinet, and Bill C-5 sets out cabinet as the decision-makers. Is it consensus from all provinces, even though some have already said no before and are saying no again, even though interprovincial pipelines for export are indisputably federal jurisdiction?

The Liberal government previously failed to enforce federal jurisdiction and the rule of law, and let activists and other levels of government weaponize laws and bylaws against proponents that already had approval. That failure is exactly what forced the private sector proponent for TMX to abandon its attempts to build, because the federal government did not use its tools to give legal, political and jurisdictional certainty for the private sector proponent to go ahead, even after the government approved it after risking it, ended up buying it and then created a costly, delayed, nationalized project. It was a dangerous signal to all investors that Canada is a place where the private sector cannot build and government will always rely on taxpayers.

Are the Liberals aware that there is already a very strong consensus among everyday Canadians everywhere across the country that Canada needs more pipelines? It has been that way for a long time, but it is growing. It is higher than ever before. The latest data shows 79% of Canadians overall, and guess what. Of Quebeckers, 86% want more pipelines for national energy security and resilience. A supermajority of Canadians are in consensus, so it is time for the Liberals to stop delaying, dithering and dodging if they really mean all their suddenly new and plagiarized words about wanting Canada to be an energy superpower.

Canadians can be forgiven for skepticism about the broad categories for national interest projects that the premiers pushed the Prime Minister and ministers to agree on. On the western Arctic energy corridor, Conservatives have always fought for northerners to make decisions, to get more revenue from resource development and to increase Canada's defence and security capabilities in the north, but the Liberals banned unleashing Arctic energy unilaterally from a different country and indefinitely. They also imposed massive antidevelopment areas that keep northerners from benefiting from their own natural wealth in a place where there is a humanitarian, housing and food crisis and few opportunities for self-sufficiency that are not related to responsible resource development, if only the government would let them develop resources.

As for the eastern energy partnership, these exact Liberals used political interference, changing goalposts and conditions never seen before or since, to force the proponent, which had spent $1 billion, to abandon the nation-building pipeline that would have linked Canada economically and physically for self-sufficiency, self-reliance and national unity. They killed that east-to-west pipeline even though private investors offered to fund it entirely. The pipeline would have connected Canadian energy from coast to coast for self-sufficiency, and they interfered to kill it because of political pressure, even though it too was a proposal strictly in federal jurisdiction.

Why should anyone believe them now? Maybe what they actually mean is connecting power among the Atlantic provinces, to which Conservatives say that the natural resources committee told the government to build interties in 2017. It did not, and then it tried to study that all over again just a few months ago before Christmas. Do members know what my advice is? Why do the Liberals not just try to get the really simple things done first?

As for a critical minerals pathway, in 2022, these same Liberals announced a critical minerals strategy. How many new mines were approved from it? There were zero. For example, Canada still does not export a single teaspoon of lithium, none, while global demand rises and China dominates the global production value and supply chains. In 2024, lithium demand rose 30%, but Canada could not provide it because mines in Canada take up to 25 years from concept to being shovel-ready under the Liberals. Why should Canadians think that 2025's critical minerals pathway will be different?

Is the next stage nuclear? Premiers from all across the country have called nuclear critical to Canada's energy future. Conservatives agree, but the Liberals have still not given a straight answer. Do all nuclear projects qualify for investment tax credits to compete with the U.S., or will they only be accessible to a few, like SMRs and large-scale plants, which are also important?

If the Liberals are serious about one project, one review, why do they not fix the fundamental problem instead of the short-term Bill C-5 queue-jumping workaround? For nuclear, for which Canada has long been world-renowned and viewed as an expert by other countries, proposals already face two reviews: an impact assessment and a full review by the expert Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Why?

Why can there not be a one project, one review process like Conservatives have always promoted to get things built? Why could the minister not say definitively that the existing nuclear proposals stalled in review right now are in the national interest? Canada cannot attract investment when the rules shift and are vague and politicized. Businesses and workers need clarity, not confusion and more questions.

With respect to infrastructure for trade diversification, the government cannot even get roads built, and the culture minister said he does not think Canada needs anymore anyway. The Webequie supply road project, the Marten Falls community access road and the northern road link project, all backed and co-owned by indigenous communities, which would unlock the Ring of Fire, remain locked in the regulator right now.

Therefore, forgive Conservatives for suggesting that government cannot unleash critical minerals if it cannot even get the roads built to develop and transport them, and those roads are the place to start. It is time to stop talking and start approving. Canadians deserve leadership that actually sets attractive, competitive investment conditions so the private sector can build. The track record of the Liberals is the opposite.

There are projects that promise not only billions for our economy but also jobs for our communities, paycheques for Canadians and revenue for governments for infrastructure programs. Let us talk about some of those numbers.

Here are some of the projects that have been killed by the Liberals. The Grassy Point LNG project had a loss of $10 billion. The West Coast Canada LNG project had a loss of $25 billion. The Aurora LNG project had a loss of $28 billion. The Prince Rupert LNG project had a loss of $11 billion. The Pacific NorthWest LNG project had a loss of $11 billion. The Kwispaa LNG project had a loss of $18 billion. The Énergie Saguenay LNG project lost $4 billion.

The Frontier oil sands mine project had a loss of $20.6 billion. The Aspen oil sands project lost $2.6 billion. The Dunkirk oil sands SAGD project had a loss of $2.4 billion. The Muskwa SAGD oil sands project had a loss of $800 million; the Carmon Creek oil sands project had a loss of $3 billion. The Frederick Brook shale project had a loss of $700 million. The Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline project had a loss of $16 billion. The energy east pipeline had a loss of $15.7 billion. The northern gateway pipeline had a loss of $7.9 billion.

These are just a few examples of the lost $670 billion in cancelled or suspended projects on the same Liberals' watch. How can the Liberals really pretend to play team Canada when they have done everything possible to hold Canada back, especially when half the cabinet ministers are exactly the same as the old ones?

The Liberals have claimed falsely there was no business case for these projects, except there obviously was to the private sector proponents ready to make major long-term investment and to all the countries who want more Canada. The Liberals have let Canada's competitors win, and they have made Canadians lose. It is not only allies that have surpassed Canada and profited from it because of the Liberals; it is also our adversaries and hostile imperialist regimes that have out-gamed and outpaced the west, while politicians here dithered, virtue signalled and imposed policies and laws that kill Canadian jobs, Canadian businesses, Canadian supply chains and have made Canada more expensive, more vulnerable and weak.

In March 2022, Latvia said it “would wholeheartedly support” Canadian LNG to cut reliance on Russia. In June 2022, Ukraine said it was seeking Canadian LNG. Years into Russia's invasion, Canada still has no east coast LNG exports because their opponents abandoned the three proposals just in the last couple of years in Atlantic Canada, probably in part because the Liberals kept saying there was no business case. Some confidence the Liberals had in Canada. Ten years of elbows down and resources in the ground made Canada a target, and Conservatives warned them all along.

In August 2022, Germany begged for Canadian LNG, but the Liberals rejected that ally. Then they made a deal with Qatar, which hides Hamas and gets to rake in billions of dollars and drive in the desert with fancy sports cars and Rolex watches, while Canadians' food prices become the highest in the G7, unemployment rates skyrocket and the Liberals' plan to ban internal combustion engines. In December 2022, Poland looked to Canada for LNG to diversify energy sources, obviously for its national security, but it got nothing. In January 2023, Japan formally requested Canadian LNG. The Liberals refused. In February 2023, one month later, Japan's ambassador said, “The world is waiting for Canada”. The Liberals keep it waiting.

In May 2023, South Korea wanted Canadian LNG. The Liberals did nothing. In March 2024, Greece's prime minister said it absolutely wanted Canada's LNG, but Liberals refused to grant export licences. In April 2024, Poland's president said it would, of course, buy Canadian LNG, if Liberals made it available. In May 2024, the Philippines expressed interest in Canadian LNG trade and investment. There was nothing from the Liberals. In November 2024, Taiwan wanted to buy and invest in Canadian LNG, for obvious security reasons and self-reliance in its region, which all Canadians should care about. The Liberals blocked it.

In February 2025, Canada refused Japan's LNG request, also with another obvious security implication. After Canada had refused Japan's LNG request in 2023, this is what happened in February 2025: the U.S. delivered a multi-trillion dollar LNG deal to Japan instead. Mexico has now flown past Canada for LNG exports, while the U.S. is the top in the world.

The Liberals started with 15 LNG proposals in 2015. Only three were approved, and only one is operational now. By the way, the one that is operational now was approved by the former Conservative government and then delayed, put through another review and put at risk by the Liberals. We all are lucky that the proponent hung in. The Liberals should not delay on approving its second phase.

During that time, during the loss of 15 LNG proposals in Canada, the U.S. approved 28, with 12 approved, 8 under construction and 8 operational right now. The U.S. is now the top exporter in the world of LNG. Canada should have been ahead of it and a key partner for North American energy and national security, but the Liberals held Canada back with a distinctly elbows-down approach, except against Canadians. They sure gave us one or two or ten.

The Prime Minister says it is elbows up against the United States, but year after year, the same Liberals handed the Americans trillions of dollars from Canada on a silver platter. The U.S. must remain Canada's top ally, with safe borders and integrated security, and it is our top ally, but there is no doubt that because of the Liberals, the U.S. is also our top competitor, as a result of damaging Canadian domestic policy.

Conservatives have always been the consistent advocates for certainty, clarity and competitive, fast approvals to make Canada strong, self-reliant and united, so of course we hope—

Indigenous AffairsOral Questions

June 13th, 2025 / 11:35 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5, which the government is trying to push through using closure, is an insult to indigenous peoples. The Liberals want to give themselves the power to make all energy project decisions by fiat. They are first going to approve projects in Ottawa and then, when the decision is made and cannot be undone, they are going to pretend to consult indigenous peoples. It is a charade and a direct violation of indigenous people's right to self-determination, to their territorial sovereignty and to reconciliation.

Will the Liberals step back, respect first nations, Inuit and Métis and engage in meaningful dialogue?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 13th, 2025 / 11:35 a.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers did not give the Liberals a blank cheque. They elected a minority government.

However, by invoking closure on Bill C-5, the Liberals are essentially asking for a blank cheque. They want a blank cheque to govern by decree, to decide everything related to energy projects and to impose pipelines on Quebeckers without Quebec's consent and without a serious environmental assessment. They also want free rein to pass the bill without debate or study.

Will the Liberals respect Quebeckers and let Parliament do its work?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 13th, 2025 / 11:25 a.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is imposing a gag order on Bill C‑5, which would give him the power to make decisions about energy projects by order in council, with no regard for Quebec or social licence. He is also rushing the passage of Bill C‑4. He is appointing ministers without a mandate letter stating his intentions, and he has ended Justin Trudeau's tradition of answering all questions in question period on Wednesdays. In short, there is no debate, no transparency and as little accountability as possible.

Do the Liberals really think this is what Quebeckers expect from a minority government?

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 13th, 2025 / 11:20 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, biodiversity acts and regulations, the Official Languages Act, the Income Tax Act and the Canada Labour Code are all acts and regulations that the minister would be allowed to suspend arbitrarily thanks to Bill C‑5.

At the very least, does not the entire framework for regulating economic activity in Quebec and Canada deserve thorough study in committee?

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

June 13th, 2025 / 10:30 a.m.


See context

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, where is Canada after this last, lost, anti-development Liberal decade? Only 11 years ago, Canada became internationally recognized as home to the richest and biggest middle class in the world, with more children lifted out of poverty than ever before. Heading into 2015, the budget was under control, with a billion-dollar surplus, and Canada's economy was the strongest in the G7, the last in and the first out of the great global recession.

Today, Canada's economy has fallen behind those of our allies. Productivity lags. Workers cannot make ends meet and wonder whose job will be gone next. Canada's natural wealth sits idle in the ground and offshore. Investment heads south and to other countries. Families, and people with no one else to count on but themself, fall further behind. Young people lose hope for their future and wonder whether they will ever be able to afford a home, build up a nest egg or actually capture their big dreams.

Communities lose opportunities and dwindle. Businesses close due to excessive red tape, taxes, costs and constant uncertainty, and they have to reduce their charitable and community contributions. Violence, crime, mental distress and suicide, especially among rural men, are on a steady rise.

Killing energy projects does not just cost jobs; it also costs communities. It takes away critical revenue to build roads and bridges. It takes away revenue for critical supports for social programs; to build arenas; to support health care, like the long-term partnerships with the Lloydminster and Bonnyville regional health foundations and energy companies; and to build schools and universities.

Today, Canada works for the super-rich, the well established, the elites, the well-connected, the big companies of all kinds, mostly foreign-founded and multinationals. It does not work for the Canadian people who do the work, take big risks and build big projects: individual entrepreneurs, small business owners, innovators, and workers and contractors who fuel, feed and power this country for our Canadian people. That is the Liberal legacy; the cost to Canadians is real, and it is staggering.

Today, we as MPs find ourselves in an odd position. The very same government that inflicted the last decade of anti-energy, anti-private-sector death by delay and uncertainty on natural resource workers and businesses in every corner of Canada, that harmed all the secondary and tertiary sectors that depend on it everywhere, that sent allies away in dire need of Canadian resources, and that divided our country, pitting Canadians, provinces, businesses and sectors against each other, suddenly claims to want big natural resources and infrastructure projects to get built in Canada, so it brought in Bill C-5, with all kinds of big promises.

However, at its heart, Bill C-5 is really a glaring admission that everything the Liberals have done for the last 10 years has made Canada a place where the red tape and constantly changing goalposts get to “no”, and nothing can get built efficiently or affordably.

The real question is this: Would the Liberals' Bill C-5 really clean up the colossal mess the Liberals themselves have made? Where are the projects held back by the lost Liberal decade? Where are the investments that would have created prosperity for every single Canadian? Where are the thousands of well-paid jobs for Canadians everywhere, and especially in rural, remote, northern, Atlantic and indigenous communities that need them most? Where are the revenues for all three levels of government to fund public services and programs, build public infrastructure and support communities?

Where has all that gone, and how much are we talking about here anyway? Well, Canada has lost $670 billion in cancelled oil, gas, LNG and pipeline projects alone since 2015, due completely to the Liberals' anti-energy, anti-development messages, policies and laws.

On Wednesday night, in committee of the whole, the minister and I discussed Bill C-5 a bit. I suggested an obvious, immediate first step, if the Liberals really want to get Canadians working and building to strengthen Canada's economy and sovereignty, that would not require weeks and months of delay, meeting after meeting, and press conference promises with very few details.

The minister said I brought up “hypothetical projects”, and he refused to say whether they met his factors for projects in the national interest, which the Liberals themselves will decide. That was alarming in itself, since the projects I mentioned are real projects, with real proponents, that would offer real jobs with powerful paycheques for Canadians and long-term tax revenue for all three levels of government. Real businesses are paying real money and losing real time trying to get to build their big projects. The problem is that they are stuck in one form of federal regulation or red tape right now.

The immediate solution is blindingly obvious, without all the extra rigamarole, uncertainty and time delays. What was extra weird about the minister's evasion is that of the five vague factors the Liberals have outlined for Bill C-5, which they will use themselves to decide what is in the national interest, two of these factors are that projects must bring economic or other benefits to Canada and that they must have a high likelihood of successful execution. Clearly the top priority action, then, to fast-track efficiently should be all the projects and proponents stuck in red tape right now by the Liberals' own conditions.

Where is the Crawford nickel-cobalt mine project near Timmins, Ontario? It was proposed in 2020 but is stuck in the regulatory mess the Liberals created. Where is the Troilus gold and copper mining project in Quebec? It has been stuck in the regulator since 2023. Where are the Rook I uranium mine and Denison uranium mine projects in northern Saskatchewan? They were proposed in 2019 and are both still stuck. Where is the Bruce C nuclear project planned for Ontario? It is stuck in double layers of regulatory review.

It is no wonder Canada ranks dead last in the G7 for development. The projects are not only lost in red tape; they also seem to be lost completely from consideration by the minister, since he was so adamant on Tuesday night that they did not exist. They are five projects, five chances to grow Canada's economy, five chances to lead the world in energy, innovation, responsible resource development and indigenous opportunities.

Of course, it is not only those five projects. In fact, there are dozens of major energy, nuclear, critical mineral and indigenous-backed resource road proposals that are stuck in limbo right now at the federal level. These projects are not theoretical; they have names, investors and local support. They have involved years of engineering, technical, environmental and consultation work, risk and investment.

The missing piece is a federal government with a will to fast-track the assessments through the regulatory maze it created itself, to approve them efficiently and to back proponents once they approve them so proponents can actually build on their time and on their dime. In Bill C-69, as would also be the case in Bill C-5, cabinet is the final decision-maker, with all the power.

Currently, both officials and ministers already have significant sweeping powers to start, stop, restart, extend, delay and suspend, and to change the rules and start all over again as many times as they want. It is no wonder things cannot get built. The government also has the power to fast-track the projects right now. Instead, it ignores all the real and ready projects, proponents and people, and has brought in a short-term workaround of its own bad policies and laws, Bill C-5.

The Liberals talk about emissions reduction and imposed electric vehicle mandates, and they want so-called green growth, but they stalled the very projects needed to make all that happen. We cannot build electric vehicles without nickel, lithium and cobalt, currently dominated by China. We cannot power a reliable, affordable modern grid without uranium and natural gas. We cannot reduce emissions and build new technology without the innovation, jobs and revenues that come from responsible Canadian resource development, mostly from traditional oil and gas, and from pipeline companies.

Alberta is an example. By 2023, Alberta oil sands reduced emissions intensity while growing production by 96%. Alberta leads the country in alternative energy development too, as in fact it always has.

According to the federal government's national inventory report from 2025, Alberta had the largest absolute reduction in emissions of any Canadian province between 2022 and 2023. That is the truth the Liberals will not tell Canadians. Albertans cut emissions not by shutting down, but by showing up and building through free enterprise, innovation and technology, getting better emissions reduction results, real emissions reduction results, without killing jobs or driving away investment. However, the Liberal government still treats as problems not solutions Alberta and every province that develops resources, those of us in the so-called ROC, the rest of Canada, that politicians in Ottawa usually ignore. The Liberals punish the most responsible energy producers in the world and give a free pass to foreign polluters. They celebrate emissions reductions in Canada when they come from lockdowns, lost jobs and bankrupt businesses.

Canadians cannot afford essentials because the government drives up costs and imposes unrealistic targets on power and fuel. It is worse when the facts do not fit the Liberals' narrative. When it turns out that Alberta reduces emissions the most, the Liberals stay silent. When LNG could displace coal from growing energy demand in Asia, India and Africa from B.C., or help secure European energy needs and cut dependence on Russia, the Liberals turn allies away. When western provinces want to build major projects or northerners want to mine and drill offshore, the Liberals deny, ban and delay. When Atlantic Canadians want to drill offshore, ship LNG to Europe or have a pipeline to bring western oil to eastern refineries so future generations of Atlantic Canadians can stay home with jobs and abundant opportunities, the Liberals interfere and then look away.

Let me pause here to tell members how important that issue is to me, because the fact is that Atlantic Canadians and Albertans are inextricably linked. We have helped build each other's provinces in the best interests of all Canadians. I say that as a first-generation born-and-raised Albertan and the daughter of a Nova Scotian and a Newfoundlander.

The Liberals spend years talking about reconciliation, yet delay, risk or kill pipelines, roads, mining projects and LNG opportunities that so many indigenous leaders, elders, youth, entrepreneurs and workers spent years negotiating with businesses to get jobs, to get their own-source revenue and to do environmental oversight in a good way. The Liberals claim to support first nations but deny them the opportunity to own, to build, to partner and to profit. It is not reconciliation when Ottawa decides who can build and who must wait. It is not partnership when one side always says no. It is not respect when indigenous voices are ignored because they want to make their own development decisions and exercise their rights and title.

The bill that we are debating today proves what Conservatives have said all along: The Liberals' antidevelopment agenda kills Canadian jobs, kills Canadian investment, weakens Canada's security, unity and sovereignty, and has made our country a risky place where nothing can get built and where uncompetitive, pancaked and incoherent taxes, laws and policies; uncertainty; and constantly changing goalposts deter big projects from our own country.

Canadians deserve a plan based on facts and results, not vague statements and delay from the same government that caused the problems it suddenly now claims to want to fix. The consequences of the Liberals' antidevelopment decade are growing poverty, not prosperity, and fractured national unity. The Liberals pit Canadians against each other and attack Albertan businesses in particular with constant misinformation and myths.

The reality is that when Alberta builds and grows, so does Canada, and when Alberta is strong, so is Canada. Albertans have been there all along with our friends from Saskatchewan and from Atlantic Canada. We have just been asking the Liberals to help get the country's top export from the industry that is still the biggest investor in Canada's declining economy by far, whether the anti-energy zealots like it or not, to more markets globally so Canada is not dependent on the United States.

Ten years later, ten years of this lost last antidevelopment Liberal decade, Canada faces economic, security and sovereignty threats from our closest ally, the world's biggest economy, our biggest customer and now, because the Liberals held Canada back every step of the way, our biggest competitor. Canadians cannot afford essentials, because the government drove up the costs of power and fuel for everyone.

Make no mistake; it did not have to be this way. With all due respect, by which I mean almost none, the time to “build Canada” and make our country self-reliant, secure, united and strong was the last decade. The answer has always been to unleash Canada's natural resources and increase production and export customers, as Conservatives and only Conservatives have consistently and unequivocally advocated the entire time. This was never actually an even-sided theoretical or philosophical debate. It has always been simply the fiscal and economic reality of our country.

Canadians deserve a government that backs them, not a government that blocks them and not a government that pees down our leg and tells us it is raining. Bill C-5 is breadcrumbs and baby steps, not a real breakthrough of Liberal-inflicted barriers on Canada. Our country needs real change and long-term, concrete certainty for the private sector and for Canadian workers to make us autonomous, resilient and secure, as the Liberals say they want to do now, even though they have been in charge around here for the last 10 years.

What would that actually look like? It would mean fixing the fundamentals and repealing the failed “no new pipelines, never build anything” bill, Bill C-69, which is rife with uncertainty; which has no concrete timelines despite Liberal claims, arbitrary and unrelated conditions, political interference and jurisdictional overreach; and which the provinces, territories, businesses and indigenous groups all oppose or want to overhaul. The Supreme Court declared Bill C-69 unconstitutional for every single reason that Conservatives, and it happened to be me, warned about during the debates. However, Liberals ignored this entire Conservative team, all the premiers, all the territorial leaders, the private sector and the Senate and rammed it through anyway.

The government should repeal the shipping ban bill, Bill C-48, which blocks dedicated export routes for Canada's much-needed energy to countries with actual emerging markets that need Canadian energy and technology in Asia, like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines, and to European allies like Germany, Latvia, Ukraine, Greece and Poland.

The geopolitical security aspects of this issue, obviously, cannot be overstated. That ban signals that shipping may be blocked by the government off any coast, just like its offshore unilateral drilling bans and antidevelopment zones on land and in water, but it stays. Clearly, the Liberals are A-okay with Canada's allies and other countries getting energy they will continue to want long into the future from the U.S. or from foreign regimes like Venezuela, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia over Canada, with much lower environmental, labour and safety standards and where the benefits usually only go to a wealthy few.

The government should repeal the Canadian oil and gas cap that will cut Canadian energy production by 5%, kill over 50,000 jobs and remove over $20 billion from Canada's GDP. That is self-inflicted sabotage that no other country in the world is doing to itself and totally nonsensical for what is actually a radical anti-energy government suddenly plagiarizing, like someone's thesis, the former Conservative government's vision for Canada as an energy superpower.

While the minister and his Liberal buddies laughed when I asked questions about job losses, Canadians stress, wondering where their next paycheque will come from. In 2021, TD Economics projected that of Canadian oil and gas jobs, up to 75% could disappear by 2050. The Liberals call it a transition for Canada. It is devastation.

The Liberals should repeal the globalist, top-down economic restructuring, just transition plan in Bill C-50 that they already know will threaten the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians and cause labour disruptions, which is bureaucratese for job losses, for 642,000 workers in the transportation sector, almost 300,000 agriculture workers, 202,000 energy workers and, get this, 193,000 in Canada's important manufacturing sector, which is maybe more important than ever before, given this world becoming more dangerous and the global threats that Canada faces because this Liberal government has failed us.

The truth is, the future does not look brighter with the same government pretending to be a new one. TD reports the unemployment rate in Canada has risen to its highest rate since 2016, outside of COVID, to 7%, and 100,000 jobs are to be lost by the third quarter of this year. The job outlook for students is even worse, with a 20% unemployment rate; that is the highest since the 2008 recession. In fact, Canadian manufacturing has lost 55,000 jobs in a period of only four months. This is not getting Canada on track; it is the continued track record of the same Liberal government, and we know what they say about lipstick on a pig.

It was not always this way. Under the former Conservative government, Canada ranked fourth for ease of doing business of all countries in the world. However, by 2020, with the Liberals, Canada had fallen to 24th, behind Georgia and Thailand. Today, Canada ranks near the bottom globally for construction permits, property registration, securing electricity and cross-border trade. In fact, Canada is ranked second worst in the OECD for construction permit timelines because of the Liberals.

The Liberals' blocked projects, hiked taxes and doubled debt have made Canada 30% less productive than the U.S. today. Since 2015, $5.6 trillion has left Canada for the U.S. That is not a coincidence; that is a Liberal consequence. The trend of Canadian investment up in the U.S. and U.S. investment down in Canada is a historic anomaly caused squarely, and for the first time ever, by the Liberals' damaging economic and energy policies.

Just last week, StatsCan reported a more than 5% decline in forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying, and oil and gas since last spring. Declines in primary and resource-producing sectors impact everything else. Ontarians now face the worst unemployment, outside COVID, since 2013. In April alone, Ontario lost 33,000 manufacturing jobs. Tens of thousands of real people lost their jobs while the Liberals patronized and laughed at opposition MPs fighting for those workers. It is a travesty that it has taken global instability, external threats, growing conflicts and a cost-of-living crisis that the Liberals created for them to even appear to take notice.

Canadians now know, without a doubt, that energy security means food, job and national security for Canada. Last year, the energy sector contributed 7.7% of GDP, or $208.8 billion, to Canada; 446,600 Canadian workers, including 10,800 indigenous people, relied on natural resources. My point here is that none of this is accidental or externally inflicted on Canada. It is the direct result of domestic antidevelopment laws and policies. Canada's top global energy and resource competitors have ramped up their production of all kinds in the same time period, with much lower standards than Canada.

We now arrive at Bill C-5. The current Prime Minister, who advised the last one for half a decade and is well known for his global advocacy to keep resources in the ground, has not actually explained whether he has had some kind of major philosophical metamorphosis, transformation and awakening from all his previous values and views but nevertheless has met with premiers and businesses and suddenly claims to want to do what Conservatives have been urging the gatekeeping, road-blocking, radical Liberals to do the entire time, which is to build, build, build.

However, there are a lot of questions. Let us start at the beginning. As of right now, the Liberals say five factors will be considered to determine whether projects are in the national interest. Bill C-5 says a project must “strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security”; “provide economic or other”, whatever that means, “benefits to Canada”; “have a high likelihood of successful execution”; “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”; and “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.”

Now, it is worth a a pause here to point out that most Canadians would likely be shocked that these factors are not already part of regulatory and cabinet decision-making and may rightly wonder what the heck the government has been thinking about for the past decade.

Also, it is worth noting that these concepts are broad enough that any interpretation or any argument could be made about each factor either way for any project, which is, of course, automatically and inherently uncertain, and wide open to manipulation and ideological or politically connected decision-making. So much for objective, technology- and sector-agnostic, predictable, clear, certain and evidence-based decision-making in Canada.

As of right now, there is no public list of projects. Now, the Prime Minister says he is getting lists from provinces, and some premiers have said what their asks are, yet the minister claims there is no list and that that will happen after Bill C-5 is law. The minister specifically said on Wednesday, and I meant Wednesday earlier when I said Tuesday, that “when the projects are designated, they will be made public.”

Do the projects drive the legislation, or does the legislation drive the projects? Do they have a list from premiers or do they not? Nobody knows, because of mixed messages and misleading answers. What is clear is that the whole thing is a politically driven and determined process, which is, actually, already exactly what the Liberals have been doing for the last decade. That is the opposite of clarity and certainty--

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

June 13th, 2025 / 10 a.m.


See context

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, be disposed of as follows:

(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order, provided that,

(i) two members from each recognized party, one member from the New Democratic Party and the member from the Green Party may each speak at the said stage for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments,

(ii) during consideration of the bill at second reading, the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown,

(iii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred;

(b) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities,

(i) if the report on the striking of membership of Standing and Standing Joint Committees of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has not yet been concurred in by the House, the whip of each recognized party shall deposit with the Clerk of the House a list of their party's members of the committee no later than the adjournment of the House on the day of the adoption of this order,

(ii) the committee shall meet on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, and on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, at 3:30 p.m., provided that,

(A) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings,

(B) the committee shall meet until 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, for the election of the chair and vice-chairs, the consideration of routine motions governing its proceedings, and to gather evidence from witnesses,

(C) the committee meet until 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, to gather evidence from witnesses and undertake clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(D) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by noon on Wednesday, June 18, 2025,

(E) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(F) if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill,

(G) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, provided that if the report is presented on Thursday, June 19, 2025, the bill shall be taken up at report stage on the next sitting day;

(c) the bill be ordered for consideration at report stage on Friday, June 20, 2025, provided that,

(i) two members from each recognized party, one member from the New Democratic Party and the member from the Green Party may each speak on report stage motions for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments,

(ii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred, except pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8),

(iii) the bill be ordered for consideration at the third reading stage immediately after concurrence of the bill at report stage;

(d) when the bill is taken up at the third reading stage, pursuant to subparagraph (c)(iii) of this order,

(i) two members from each recognized party, one member from the New Democratic Party and the member from the Green Party may each speak at the said stage for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments,

(ii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred;

(e) on Friday, June 20, 2025, the House shall not adjourn until the proceedings on the bill have been completed, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown, provided that once proceedings have been completed, the House may then proceed to consider other business or, if it has already passed the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day; and

(f) no motion to adjourn the debate at any stage of the said bill may be moved except by a minister of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first chance I have had to speak in the House since you became a chair occupant. Let me congratulate you on this important honour.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, which I had the honour of tabling in this House last week. This House is a place where, for generations, Canadians have placed their hopes, confronted adversity together and shaped the future of our country. Today, we do so again, facing challenges both new and familiar. The time for resolute action is now.

At the first ministers' meeting last week in Saskatoon, premiers unanimously expressed their spirited support for decisive movement on nation-building projects. There was a clear recognition that this hinge moment is an opportunity to reunite with the can-do spirit that envisioned and built, for example, the Confederation Bridge or the St. Lawrence Seaway. In that spirit, I hope colleagues will join us and recognize that this is an important moment to accelerate the adoption of this legislation.

Canada stands at a crossroads. Global shifts and internal obstacles demand a clear and rapid response. The United States, our closest trade and security partner, has become unpredictable and undependable. It has imposed unjustified and illegal tariffs, reminding us that our prosperity cannot rely disproportionately on the status quo. However, in challenge lies opportunity. Canada's unity, resolve and resourcefulness are obviously our greatest assets.

In the same spirit, I am honoured to speak to Bill C‑5, the one Canadian economy act, a plan designed to remove barriers, redefine our vision and open a new chapter in our national history. The time for action is now.

From fishers in the Northumberland Strait to mine workers in Whitehorse and innovators in Montreal, let this be the moment where we come together and choose to build and achieve great things. In the face of these new uncertainties, it is up to us to forge our economic destiny.

One of the central pillars of this legislation is a new framework for what we call projects of national interest, initiatives that will move our country forward, reinforce our economic sovereignty and drive prosperity in every region of the country.

For far too long, major projects, whether energy transmission lines, critical mineral developments, pipelines or clean technology projects, have been stalled by assessments, challenges, and overlapping and duplicative regulations. Investors, provinces and territories, and the business community have said that it is too difficult and takes too long to build important economically feasible projects in Canada. This has led to potential missed investment opportunities, lost jobs and a lack of competitiveness vis-à-vis our international counterparts. Our shared prosperity requires quick action.

This bill would introduce a new tool, a process for identifying, prioritizing and advancing transformative infrastructure and development projects. To support this new process, the government plans to create a new federal major projects office to coordinate, problem-solve and fast-track projects of national interest, transitioning from a fragmented approach to approval to unified, decisive action. For projects of national interest like these, we are committed to making decisions within a maximum time frame of two years, not five years or more.

The Prime Minister has been very clear. Moving forward, we will commit to a “one project, one review” approach. The days of duplication and cost overruns are over. Federal, provincial and territorial authorities will all work on a single assessment to move quickly, while remaining just as thorough and maintaining public trust. Standards will be high. Only projects that strengthen Canada's resilience, provide measurable economic benefits and are in line with our environmental, social and indigenous reconciliation values will receive this designation. Our goal is to put “Canada” and “achievement”, not “Canada” and “delay”, in the same sentence.

Just as vital is the continued commitment by this government that indigenous governments, partners and indeed indigenous peoples and communities must be engaged from the outset. Respect for constitutionally protected indigenous rights, knowledge and priorities is obviously non-negotiable and is clearly enunciated in the bill currently before the House. When we say partnership is the foundation, we mean exactly that. Whether in Inuvik, the Métis heartland of Manitoba or the Mi'kmaq territory in Atlantic Canada, nation building is only real if it is shared. That is why equity partnerships for indigenous peoples will be supported and prioritized.

Environmental stewardship will also remain paramount. This bill would not weaken any of Canada's core environmental statutes. Instead, it is about considering whether major projects drive clean growth and forge a sustainable legacy for the next generations.

The work of building a modern one Canadian economy does not stop with flagship projects. Our prosperity also depends on removing barriers that hobble Canadians' ability to trade, connect and work wherever opportunity calls across our country.

Let us talk about the reality facing thousands of small business owners everyday. Let us say someone makes kitchen appliances right here in Ontario. They might be investing in new refrigeration or dishwasher technology that saves Canadians money on their electricity bills, but even though they meet Ontario's stringent energy efficiency requirements, they cannot say their product meets federal standards for energy efficiency unless they have met all the federal testing, labelling and compliance procedures. As a result, they would not be able to sell their appliances across the border into Quebec or Manitoba. It might take months or more to navigate the federal process to prove their product is really as energy efficient as they say or as the Ontario standards have confirmed. That can slow things down and obviously adds cost.

The results of that are clear: unnecessary costs, regulatory confusion and a missed economic opportunity. Bill C‑5 is designed to ensure that a product that meets provincial or territorial energy efficiency standards would meet comparable federal standards.

Under this bill, if a good is produced, used or sold in accordance with a province's rules, it can move across the country without having to meet federal standards as long as it serves the same purpose.

Think about a Manitoba truck driver who has to deal not only with provincial requirements, but also with additional federal rules when crossing the border into Saskatchewan or Ontario. Paperwork, fees and compliance reviews are all barriers that slow down our most ambitious workers and businesses.

This bill will remove those federal barriers. A good or service produced in line with provincial or territorial regulations will be recognized as meeting comparable federal standards for interprovincial trade.

Labour mobility is also part of this bill. People in too many professions, like nurses, engineers, land surveyors and skilled trades people, find their skills underutilized due to conflicting or duplicate certification requirements. Where federal and provincial regulations overlap, this legislation guarantees swift mutual recognition of provincial and territorial credentials for federally regulated workers. This is about leveraging Canada's full talent pool, ensuring that skilled workers can answer opportunity's call everywhere in the country without bureaucratic delay. It is also about Canadians trusting each other. Every barrier we lift is a door opened to higher wages, broader horizons and greater economic momentum.

With this legislation, Canada positions itself firmly to become a clean and conventional energy superpower. Fort McMurray oil sands will lead on both production and emissions reductions. Edmonton and Sarnia are primed for leadership in hydrogen. New transmission infrastructure will ferry Labrador's clean hydro to Montreal and beyond.

We will mine, refine and finish uranium from Saskatchewan, lithium in northern Quebec and cobalt from Nunavut, delivering resources the world needs from a reliable, sustainable partner. Pipelines and port expansions will be built faster and smarter with climate and community in mind, showing that economic and environmental progress are not at odds but intertwined. Canada will not simply participate in the global resource economy; we will help define it.

I would like to assure the House that this commitment to acceleration does not mean exclusion or diminution of environmental standards or, obviously, our constitutionally enshrined obligations to indigenous peoples. Every major project advanced through the changes proposed in Bill C-5 will require real partnerships with indigenous peoples. We have already announced that we are setting up an indigenous advisory council. We will ensure that self-determination, inclusion and respect are at the heart of this process.

Environmental protection measures are essential too. Projects of national interest must facilitate clean, responsible growth, meeting today's needs while leaving a healthy legacy for future generations. This bill is driven by and focused on Canadians. It is for young apprentices in Lethbridge considering a career in biofuels, for power line technicians in Thunder Bay and for health care professionals in Moncton.

We are delivering what Canadians have always asked for: an economy that rewards people who work hard and innovate, no matter where they live. There has never been a better time for the world to choose to do business with Canada. We offer a stable and predictable political environment and a skilled and diverse workforce, making us the best place in the world for investment and collaboration.

Where our allies seek certainty, reliable timelines or climate leadership, Canada is ready to answer that call with our brightest and our best. Let us capture this moment, one where trade flourishes, dreams of workers and business owners can grow, and hope will abound in every part of our country as we look to greater economic prosperity together.

We have a real opportunity now, across political parties and regions, to unite behind the idea of delivering, not delaying. Let us remove the barriers that keep us locked in 13 separate economies instead of one growing, sustainable Canadian economy. Let us turn the page and move forward with purpose, to get big things built in this country once again.

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

June 12th, 2025 / 3:20 p.m.


See context

Gatineau Québec

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my hon. colleague that there will be a government budget in the fall, which is something that all Canadians except the Conservatives seem to know. It will be an excellent budget that will invest in the Canadian economy and create opportunities from coast to coast to coast.

This afternoon, we will continue the debate on the Conservative Party's opposition day motion. In accordance with the order adopted by the House yesterday, we will have a fifth and final committee of the whole debate on the estimates later this evening for two hours. Tomorrow morning, we will start the debate on Government Business No. 1, which establishes a process to adopt Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act. We will continue with this debate on Monday.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday will be the last designated day of this financial cycle. On Wednesday, we will resume second reading of Bill C‑2 respecting the security of the border between Canada and the United States. On Thursday, we will begin second reading debate on Bill C‑3, which amends the Citizenship Act.

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 12th, 2025 / 3:05 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 violates constitutional obligations, eradicates environmental protections, compromises workers' health and safety, and fails to hold corporations accountable in cases where violence is inflicted on indigenous women and girls, which is one of the calls for justice from the national inquiry.

We thought Pierre Poilievre lost his seat, but it seems like he is leading the Liberal Party. Is that why the government is trying to fast-track Bill C-5 ?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 12th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is going to have to leave the banker behind and start acting like a democrat. Bill C-5 raises major concerns about the environment and Quebec's sovereignty over its own territory. If there is one bill that needs to be studied thoroughly, it is this one. The Prime Minister has no right to move closure on Bill C‑5 when the bill gives him unprecedented, exceptional powers.

Is the Prime Minister's intention to bypass Parliament and govern by executive order like Donald Trump?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 12th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has given notice of a gag order on Bill C‑5. The House has been sitting for just three weeks, and he already wants to ram through a bill, and not just any bill. Bill C‑5 gives him the power to rule by decree on fossil fuel projects. Bill C-5 completely guts environmental assessments. Bill C‑5 threatens Quebec's jurisdiction and the rights of indigenous peoples. It makes no sense to let it go through without debate, studies or hearing from witnesses.

Will the Prime Minister let Parliament do its job?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 10:50 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Chair, the minister can disagree with the premise all he wants, but it is his own government memo that says 2.7 million livelihoods in construction, energy, transportation, agriculture and manufacturing will be lost because of that bill, which is on the books. What we have really seen here tonight is no details, no transparency, no plan and an admission, with the Liberals' own Bill C-5, that all of their anti-development bills are holding Canada back and killing Canadian jobs. They are driving projects away and driving half a trillion dollars into the U.S.

How can Canadians believe anything the Liberals say now?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 10:05 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Chair, is the minister aware that Bill C-5 would usurp the authority of modern land claim agreements and legally transfer that authority to ministers in cabinet, without the consent of indigenous signatories?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 10:05 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Chair, the minister seems to be totally absent and not to understand the issue of gender-based violence. He has not taken any of those factors into account.

Moving forward, would Bill C-5 put in place measures to hold resource companies accountable in cases where workers perpetrate violence against indigenous women and girls, or is that still off his radar?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 10 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Chair, how will the government uphold its commitment to fight the climate crisis in Bill C-5 when a minister in cabinet can override legislative assessment processes, including the environmental protections contained in the Impact Assessment Act?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 10 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Chair, why is FPIC, free, prior and informed consent, left out of Bill C-5?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 10 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Chair, through numerous Supreme Court of Canada decisions, the court has determined a constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate indigenous peoples, including the obligation to obtain full consent. Is the minister aware that Bill C-5 fails to uphold that constitutional obligation, yes or no?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 10 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Chair, is the minister aware that Bill C-5 violates section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, yes or no?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 10 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Chair, to the Minister of Resources, has Bill C-5 been subjected to a charter challenge test, as required by the Department of Justice Act, section 4.2?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 9:55 p.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Chair, none of what he has just said is actually what Bill C-5 says. There is no requirement for consensus, nor is there any legal requirement that any of the factors that are listed are actually considered by cabinet.

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 9:55 p.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Chair, is the minister aware that none of what he just said would have any force in law under Bill C-5?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 9:10 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Chair, why is the government's claim of the two-year target for project approvals not in Bill C-5?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 9:05 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Chair, that is an admission that Bill C-69 blocks projects. The government would not need Bill C-5 if it worked.

What specific projects will be of national interest?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 9:05 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Mr. Chair, why does Bill C-5 allow for exemptions from the Conflict of Interest Act?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 8 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Tim Hodgson Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON

Mr. Chair, we can all think back to Mr. Trump in the White House explaining to other leaders that they do not have any cards. In that card game, we have some really good cards. When the President says they do not need our lumber, our potash, our uranium and our autos, we know what Mr. Trump is really saying: They need our lumber, they need our uranium, they need our potash and they need our autos.

We can make more good cards. This is all about preparing ourselves for a new world order. That is what the one Canadian economy act is designed to do. It is designed to identify projects of national interest that will retool our economy, grow our economy and give us the cards we need, whether we are dealing with Mr. Trump, whether we are dealing with China or whether we are dealing with any other nation that has shifted from a post-Bretton Woods world to the mercantilist world we are in today.

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2025 / 6:45 p.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak to Bill C-4. First of all, I want to make a couple of observations about the legislation we are seeing in this place under the new government.

I am distressed. It may be a manageable issue, and maybe I am the only one who is noticing that almost every bill that comes before us is in omnibus form; in other words, many different bills are addressed within the same bill. Some of the issues are connected one to the other, which makes it a legitimate omnibus bill, and some seem to be for the purpose of convenience, to save the government time. For instance, in Bill C-2, the strong borders act, there are some aspects that do not really have to do with borders at all, and there is significant concern from people who are in the refugee law community, and from Amnesty International.

We are looking at Bill C-4 tonight, and I will give it more detail, but briefly, Bill C-5 should have been two different pieces of legislation. Part 1 deals with interprovincial barriers between labour mobility and recognizing different kinds of restrictions to moving goods. Part 2 is the building Canada act, which is entirely different. Part 1 has drawn attention from the Canadian Cancer Society, as it is concerned the bill may lead to a weakening of standards across the country. Meanwhile, part 2 needs massive study, appears, at least to me, to give unprecedented levels of unfettered political discretion to cabinet, and is unprecedented in its scope.

On Bill C-4, before I go to the affordability section, let me just point to the anomalous inclusion of changes to the Canada Elections Act. The Canada Elections Act and privacy concerns for Canadian citizens under the Elections Act have no connection whatsoever to affordability. However, here we have it: part 4, Canada Elections Act amendments that are similar to what we saw in the previous Parliament in Bill C-65, which I do wish had carried before we went into the last election, as it would have certainly expedited the collection of signatures for candidates and their chances of getting nominated candidates onto ballots.

This is weaker than that, but it does have some connection to what we saw in Bill C-65 in relating to restrictions on political parties' ability to save information and violate Canadians' privacy. It does not belong in an affordability act at all. We have heard at least one other MP tonight, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, mention the issue that we want to protect personal information and that privacy laws should extend to political parties.

Unusually, in Bill C-4, new subsection 446.4(1) would assert an ability for federal legislation to negate provincial privacy laws and what provincial privacy laws can say about federal political parties. That is questionable at best. It also, to me, is somewhat offensive, or very offensive I suppose, that clause 49 of part 4 of Bill C-4 deals with the date of coming into force.

Experienced members of this place who look at statutory interpretation, which we do, and I hope we all read the legislation and all bills carefully, know certainly that coming into force is usually a date in the future. A bill would pass through the House, pass through the Senate and then come into force, sometimes at a date that is certain. I have a pretty good memory. I may have forgotten that there was ever a bill like this one, but within my ability to remember everything I have ever read in legislation, I do not think I have ever seen a bill that purports to come into force 25 years before the date on which it is passed.

Members who are learning this for the first time, if they look at clause 49 of Bill C-4, will find that the date on which the bill we are discussing today, June 11, 2025, would have come into force is May 31, 2000. This would exempt federal political parties from any offences they may have committed in failing to obey provincial legislation to which we were subjected, by going all the way back, resetting the clock, to May 31, 2000.

In this place, we like time travel; let us face it. We do like seeing the clock at midnight when it is not midnight, and we can do that in this place. We can say, “Gee, I wish it were midnight. I am ready to go home. Let us all agree we see the clock at midnight.”

I do not know whether anyone has ever tried a trick like seeing the year at 25 years ago. I am worried about this, and I do not know that we will have time, but I certainly hope we will properly study Bill C-4 in committee, and maybe we can persuade the government that part 4 should be pulled apart and studied separately from the rest of the bill.

The rest of the bill is tax measures. There is only part of the tax measures I would want to address at this point, and I am cognizant of the time. I know we are coming near a point where I should close to avoid being interrupted, but I do not mind interruptions, certainly for unanimous consent motions, because I think we are unanimous on that.

However, let us just say I am probably the only remaining member of Parliament who will stand up and say that the consumer carbon price was a good idea. It is a shame to see such cowardice on all sides of the House from the parties that used to support using market mechanisms, which is actually from the right-wing tool kit invented by Republicans in Washington, D.C., of how we can reduce emissions of whatever. Air pollutants in the area around Los Angeles is one of the first places market mechanisms were used.

Carbon pricing is being accepted by economists around the world as having a more efficient economic impact, reduced transactional costs of implementing the regulatory approach. Generally, people on the right do not like regulation. That is a choice: If we are going to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, we could use a regulatory approach. We could use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, part 4, which already exists, and put in place regulated, required hard caps on emissions of any pollutants, thus bringing them down sharply without having to use the more complex measures of pricing.

I would rather see the consumer carbon price used as what is called, in the literature, carbon fee and dividend, in other words, maintaining pollution taxation as revenue-neutral. A key feature in good, solid gold-standard carbon pricing is that the government should not live on pollution as a source of revenue to government. We want to make sure that whatever we take in on a carbon price is rebated as efficiently as possible to those who paid it.

To the idea that we do not want to have this, I just add again that according to the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development—

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 10th, 2025 / 10:20 p.m.


See context

Liberal

François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will have a great opportunity. They can vote for Bill C-5. I am sure people are anxious. There are people watching tonight. The member was wondering who is watching. Bill C-5 is—

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 10th, 2025 / 8:15 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Chair, that was very good; they are all the same, which emphasizes what it is that Canadians were saying at the doors, and that is one of the reasons 8.5 million Canadians voted for the Prime Minister and the Liberal candidates throughout the country. The Liberal Party was the only political party to actually get a member elected in every province.

I believe that this evening we have heard from two of the ministers who are playing a very important role. I think of the issue of international trade. In the past 10 years, we have actually had more trade agreements signed off on than in any other administration in the 40 or 50 previous years, and now there is a minister who has really taken charge of what the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister wants us to be able to diversify and to look at other countries and how we can increase exports.

That is why I was really encouraged, even in the off-the-cuff question I had for the Minister of International Trade, when I made reference to the Phillippines, a country I am very passionate about because I see the potential that is there and match it with some of the things the Prime Minister is talking about. There are many countries we can look at and enhance trading opportunities with. This is actually incorporated into our legislative agenda.

There is also the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, who has done a fantastic job of getting the legislation that is so critically important.

Again, in the last election, what commitment was made? To deal with the issue of affordability, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he wanted to give Canadians a tax break. That is what the Minister of Finance has been working on, bringing forward legislation that not only gives a tax break to 22 million Canadians but also brings in a first-time homebuyer tax break on the first $1 million for people who are purchasing new homes, thereby helping first-time homebuyers while at the same time encouraging and promoting housing construction.

These are two very important initiatives that complement what the Prime Minister committed to prior to the election being called, which was to cancel the carbon tax. We have a new Prime Minister with a new mandate and a new government that have brought these initiatives forward for debate and ultimately passage here in the House of Commons, as has been demonstrated this evening with the ministers presenting on the estimates, estimates that the Conservative Party voted for.

The Conservatives were not alone. Every member of Parliament voted in favour of the ways and means motion, which is the estimates, and we appreciate that vote of confidence. At the end of the day, I truly believe that what we need to do is not just give the government a vote of confidence, thereby saying, yes, we are fulfilling in part a very major aspect of the last campaign, but, as part of that, also look at the legislative agenda.

The legislative agenda does just that. It gets rid of the carbon tax in law, the consumer component. That is actually incorporated into Bill C-4. Not only does it have that aspect, but it also ensures the tax cut for 22 million taxpayers. Eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers is also incorporated into Bill C-4.

Think about it. These are three major initiatives in the legislation, a part of the Prime Minister's campaign to deliver for Canadians. I believe that every member of the House supports it. After all, they supported and voted unanimously in favour of the ways and means motion. One would think they would support this legislation.

Why is the legislation important? It is because the tax break is to take effect on July 1, which is coming up soon. Everyone needs to be aware of that. I hope the Conservatives will recognize the value of passing that particular piece of legislation.

The good news does not stop there. The Minister of Finance talked about having the strongest economy in the G7. The Minister of Finance is not alone. The Prime Minister has been talking about that fairly extensively. We want to build that strong economy.

We can talk about Bill C-5. Bill C-5 does just that, recognizing one Canadian economy. That will make a difference. There are also the border controls in Bill C-2. These three are wraparounds to address election platform issues that every member not only should be looking at but should be getting passed, I would suggest.

My question for the Minister of Finance is related to Bill C-4 in particular: How critically important is it that we deliver tax breaks on July 1? We need to see Bill C-4 passed, as well as the other two pieces of legislation. Can he provide his thoughts with regard to the Prime Minister's commitment, how this legislation in good part delivers for Canadians, and the responsibility of the opposition, in particular the Conservative Party, to see the legislation go through?

Opposition Motion—Canada Carbon Rebate and Payment to QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 10th, 2025 / 3:45 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate and to reiterate our government's immediate priorities for making life more affordable for all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

Ultimately, this motion and debate boil down to affordability. I will therefore take a moment to focus on the logic behind the consumer carbon tax rebate, although I would also like to pause in order to go over some of the important measures that our government has taken to make life more affordable for Canadians.

Quebeckers and Canadians asked for a serious plan for change to deal with the rising cost of living that has eroded their quality of life; change that puts more money in the pockets of Quebeckers and Canadians; change that will build the strongest economy in the G7; change that builds one Canadian economy out of 13 and that includes a strong Quebec; and change that builds an affordable Quebec and an affordable Canada. During this session, our government has introduced important and ambitious legislation to make life more affordable for Quebeckers.

Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, sets out legislative measures designed to eliminate internal trade barriers and promote projects of national significance. It sets out a broad framework for liberalizing the Canadian economy, diversifying trade and improving national productivity, resilience and competitiveness.

In Bill C‑4, we have put forward three important measures that will put more money in the pockets of Quebeckers at a time when they really need it. First of all, Bill C-4 would implement our government's middle-class tax cut, which would provide tax relief to 22 million Canadians, including 4 million Quebeckers, and save two-income families up to $840 per year in 2026.

Once this legislation is enacted, the lowest individual marginal income tax rate would fall from 15% to 14% as of July 1 of this year. This tax cut would help hard-working Quebeckers and Canadians keep more of what they earn in their pockets and build a solid future. This tax cut will primarily benefit the Canadian workers who need it the most. That means that most of the tax relief will go to the two lowest income tax brackets, with close to half the tax savings going to those in the lowest tax bracket.

In addition, Bill C-4 would start providing tax relief almost immediately. With our middle-class tax cut announcement, the Canada Revenue Agency can update its source deduction tables for the period from July to December 2025, so that pay administrators can reduce income tax as of July 1. Further, Bill C-4 will remove the GST for first-time buyers of new homes valued at up to $1 million. That is great news.

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

June 10th, 2025 / 3 p.m.


See context

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that he cannot impose a pipeline without agreement from the provinces. The problem is that his Bill C-5 does not say that at all. It even says the opposite.

In fact, once a project is designated as being in the national interest, it is a done deal, and there is nothing the provinces, the first nations, Canadians or cities can do to stop it. This is going to happen no matter the cost, in two years at the most. It is a huge gift for the large corporations.

Why does the Prime Minister, who was elected to stop the Conservatives from winning, want to achieve Pierre Poilievre's wildest and most dangerous dreams?

Opposition Motion—Canada Carbon Rebate and Payment to QuebecBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 10th, 2025 / 12:35 p.m.


See context

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my colleague's speech because it is a real farce. He is telling us that his government is still keen on fighting climate change after it eliminated the carbon tax for individuals and after one of the first things that the Prime Minister did once he was elected was to meet with the oil and gas companies. Now the government has tabled Bill C-5, which will give any minister responsible for the Major Projects Management Office the discretion to exempt any oil project from environmental standards. That makes no sense.

To get back to today's motion, what we want is to be reimbursed for the $814 million that Quebec paid to the rest of Canada while it still had a carbon exchange program. What message is the government sending when it decides to issue cheques for a tax that people are not paying, and when it makes people who are still fighting climate change pay for those cheques?

Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (A), 2025-26Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2025 / 6:25 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

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

Opposition Motion—Food Inflation and Budgetary PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2025 / 6 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

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

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

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 9th, 2025 / 3 p.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

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

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

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 9th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

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

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

How are the Liberals any different from Pierre Poilievre?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 9th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Gatineau Québec

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

The EnvironmentOral Questions

June 9th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

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

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

Intergovernmental RelationsOral Questions

June 9th, 2025 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Food Inflation and Budgetary PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2025 / 1:15 p.m.


See context

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Kody Blois LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Food Inflation and Budgetary PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2025 / 1:10 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Food Inflation and Budgetary PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 9th, 2025 / 11:55 a.m.


See context

Bloc

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

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

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

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

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians ActGovernment Orders

June 6th, 2025 / 1:35 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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