Bill C-5

One Canadian Economy Act

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

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

One Canadian Economy Act

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

moved that Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in the strong cross-party support for this legislation, members understand that Canada is at a critical moment. U.S. tariffs are battering our economy and threatening to push the entire world into a recession. Hard-working Canadians are losing their jobs, businesses are losing their customers, and investors are holding back.

That is why now is the time to act decisively where we have the power to do so, here in Canada. Now is the time to build Canada, to make our country more prosperous, more resilient and stronger.

I joined the Prime Minister, along with my colleagues the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, and met with the premiers at the first ministers' meeting in Saskatoon a few weeks ago. We talked together about our plan to get nation-building projects moving in Canada. We agreed to act quickly together to get this done. We must, and so we are confident that we will.

However, even acting with great focus and urgency, these nation-building projects will take a little time. That 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. Economists estimate that truly free trade within our country, making it as easy to do business between, say, B.C. and Nova Scotia as it is within one province itself, would add as much as $200 billion to Canada's economy. At this time of crisis, that is a boost we definitely need. Free trade in our own country is a great idea whose time has come.

Now that the LCBO is not stocking American wine, it makes more sense than ever to be sure that Nova Scotia and B.C. wines can be found on its shelf. A registered nurse qualified in Saskatchewan should be able to get right to work if her family moves to Newfoundland to be close to aging relatives. A plumbing firm in Winnipeg should as easily be able to expand to do jobs in Kenora as it can in Brandon, and a trucker should be able to drive from Halifax Harbour to the port of Vancouver without buying permits to cross between provinces and wasting precious time making technical adjustments after he rolls across each provincial line. Freer internal trade and easier labour mobility will also help boost our housing industry, including the construction of modular homes, which can bring down the cost of building new homes and get them finished faster.

Ultimately, the decision to build one Canadian economy out of 13 is a decision to trust one another. It is about deciding that the delicious steak that people eat in Calgary is surely good enough to serve in Charlottetown and that the dental hygienist whose patients in Moncton adore her can be counted on to do the same excellent work when she moves to Quebec City.

Australia, a country with which we have so much in common, made the decision to build a single continental economy 30 years ago. Australians decided to trust each other. Over the past three decades, that trust has enriched every Australian and strengthened the bonds that unite that beautiful country.

Now is the moment for Canada to do likewise. The wave of patriotism that has swept across our great country over the past few months has been truly inspiring and invigorating. Let us seize the moment to turn that love of Canada into action by trusting each other and creating one single Canadian economy from coast to coast to coast.

That is why we introduced this bill. We want to eliminate domestic trade barriers and build one Canadian economy. For far too long, senseless barriers have curbed trade. It is time to mutually recognize provincial and territorial regulations to facilitate trade by Canadian companies throughout the country and allow skilled workers to seize opportunities, wherever they may be.

Momentum is growing across the country toward this laudable goal. P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have all passed legislation to remove barriers to internal trade. British Columbia has passed its historic economic stabilization act, and Quebec is advancing its own reforms. Memoranda of understanding between Ontario and other provinces, including Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as well as powerful regional agreements like the new west partnership, signal new levels of co-operation and a commitment to bring down barriers to internal trade and to make labour mobility easier. I want to salute my native Alberta for its pioneering leadership on this issue.

At the national level, through the committee on internal trade, we are accelerating efforts to eliminate remaining exceptions to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, advance mutual recognition in sectors such as trucking and consumer goods, and facilitate housing construction by addressing interprovincial material and labour barriers. Progress is also being made on credential recognition and direct-to-consumer alcohol sales.

I encourage all members of the House to support this work to strengthen transportation and trade infrastructure and deliver on the promise of a truly unified economy.

This is something leaders from all political parties agree on. After the first ministers' meeting in Saskatoon, premiers of all political stripes were enthusiastic about our shared mission to build Canada. Premier Kinew said, “It's a generational opportunity for Canadians, but it's also a generational opportunity for some of the poorest communities in our country.”

Premier Legault said, “We had an excellent meeting.”

I say to my dear colleagues that this is truly not a partisan effort. These are nation-building priorities, ones that benefit every region, every business and every Canadian. What a delicious irony it would be for us to respond to tariffs imposed from abroad by finally tearing down the tariff and trade barriers we have imposed on each other.

Let us get this done once and for all and deliver free trade in Canada. Let us get this important work done together. I know that we can do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the Minister of Transport's speech here today. First of all, she did mention interprovincial trucking, yet the bill has nothing to do with interprovincial trucking. I would like the minister to account for whether or not she is prepared to show some leadership in that area.

More than that, the minister has talked about consensus. Essentially, the Prime Minister has given a veto to every provincial premier. That means that the bill would enshrine 13 different economies by giving each provincial premier a veto. Would the minister please explain why there is this contradiction? We cannot have one national economy if we have 13 different decision-makers when it comes to getting big projects built.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by recognizing, as I did before the Senate today, the pioneering work the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna has done on this issue. I think all of us remember, who could forget, his slogan to “free the beer”. He was ahead of his time.

I have emphasized that this is not a partisan bill. This is about work that I believe all Canadians can support. We are very lucky. There is a window right now to get this work done, and I am really grateful to the members opposite for supporting it.

I also want to address the issue of trucking. Trucking is absolutely essential, and it is essential to make it easier to drive trucks across the country. That is why I mentioned it in my opening remarks. We are going to have a trucking hackathon at—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question about this bill, which some might see as a declaration of war against first nations.

Earlier on, I made a little pilgrimage to the Senate to hear what National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak had to say. One of the things she mentioned was how important and urgent it is to respect the obligation to conduct advance consultations in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This process was clearly botched. The government did not obtain the free, prior and informed consent of first nations.

Will the minister commit to responding to the national chief's request by extending consultations with indigenous peoples? She is asking that this be done over the summer or in the fall. Will the minister give her a timely answer?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill clearly states that we will work closely with indigenous peoples, first nations, Inuit and Métis. We have established five criteria to determine a project's importance. One of them states that the project has to serve the interests of indigenous peoples.

I would also like to point out that we have announced nearly $20 million in annual funding to support consultations and essential work in co-operation with indigenous peoples.

Finally, I want to emphasize the importance of the $10‑billion investment to support indigenous peoples' involvement.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the hon. minister for all the work she is doing to make sure we honour the mandate that Canadians sent us to the House to do.

Earlier in the House, I heard a lot of questions asking if the government was moving too fast, if there are benefits to removing these internal barriers to trade and if that was actually going to have an impact on jobs within communities across Canada. Maybe the member could answer those questions.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at up to $200 billion, our internal trade barriers are effectively a 7% tariff that we have imposed on ourselves. Members can think about how much national focus there is on tariffs being imposed on us by other countries, yet we impose a 7% tariff on each other. Let us trust each other. Let us seize this opportunity. Let us help ourselves and help each other.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great humility that I rise today for my first speech in the House of Commons. I would like to use this opportunity to thank my constituents of Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk for electing me to represent them here. I am honoured to have earned their trust and to serve as their voice in our nation's Parliament. I would also like to thank my team for their dedication throughout my campaign and my family for their unwavering support in this new chapter.

The riding is a vast and diverse region, rich in natural resources, strong culture heritage and resilient communities, and I am committed to ensuring their voices are heard and their priorities are upheld.

Over the last Liberal decade, our economy has experienced the worst economic growth in the G7. We have become more dependent on the United States, and the buying power of our workers' paycheques has declined because Liberal laws have blocked resource development.

Despite having the most resources per capita of any country on earth, we continue to fall short of our economic potential. The recent tariffs from the United States have turned this problem into a full-fledged crisis, one that underscores the urgent need to rebuild economic prosperity for all Canadians. The Prime Minister has recently introduced Bill C-5. A very small number of interprovincial barriers would be eliminated by this bill, which is better than nothing, but tens of billions of dollars of obstacles at the provincial level would remain untouched.

In my professional experience as a forestry executive and through my 45 years of work in the forestry and mining sectors across northeastern Ontario, I have seen first-hand the barriers that stand in the way of productivity, investment and opportunity. Bill C-5, in its current form, fails to meaningfully address or eliminate such barriers. It is not the economic breakthrough the Liberal government wants Canadians to believe it is. Rather, it is a minor baby step and a missed opportunity to reach independence and self-reliance.

Bill C‑5 does not actually address the structural issues that are holding back Canada's economic development. Although the bill does not propose anything that slows down free trade or infrastructure projects, it lacks a practical vision for adapting to our current situation.

For those listening at home, Bill C-5 is split into two parts. The first part is about free trade and labour exchange across Canada. The second part is about projects deemed to be in the national interest, which will have their approval process streamlined by reporting to one point of contact. It includes provisions for the federal government to determine whether a major project is in the national interest based on consultation with provinces, territories and indigenous people.

Despite its ambitions, Bill C-5 falls incredibly short of delivering true free trade and getting major projects built quickly. There are simply too many fault points in Bill C-5 for us to accept the bill in its current state.

Bill C-5 does not present any concrete timelines. It does not provide for a public list of priority projects and it lacks clarity, and yet these key elements are essential to ensuring speed, accountability and public trust in the process. Without those safeguards, the bill cannot achieve its objectives or live up to Canadians' expectations.

The Liberals' own laws are barriers to development, and this bill is an admission to that. There is a way to fast-track unleashing Canadian resources. It is to remove the Liberal antidevelopment laws that block projects in first place, such as Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the oil and gas cap, and the industrial carbon tax.

This bill, like many of the Liberal government's bills, reflects a limited approach and reinforces the idea that maintaining its restrictive legislation is hampering much-needed economic growth.

Canada has 28 projects stuck in federal review, in nuclear, uranium, mining, oil and gas, hydro and roads to unlock critical minerals. Those are real projects with real proponents. By the Liberals' own argument, the obvious place to start, which would not even require legislation, would be to fast-track those assessments and approvals.

Look at what is already being done south of the border in the United States. The U.S. approves major energy projects, such as oil, gas, critical minerals and uranium, on federal lands in as few as 28 days.

The Liberals now promise a two-year timeline, where Conservatives proposed a one-year maximum wait time for approvals, with a target of six months for projects of national importance, and to also uphold the duty to consult and actually get projects built.

The Liberal government needs to get with the times. If it really wants to make Canada truly self-reliant and competitive with the U.S., we need to actually compete. The world is becoming only more chaotic and fast-paced. We need realistic times to deliver our projects, or we risk staying left behind. Canada has what the world needs. We need to give it to them when they need it.

The Prime Minister says this is an exceptional crisis. If that is true, why do we need to agree to a two-year wait time? In a real crisis, leadership calls for urgent action. Two years is simply too long. Canada is dependent on and vulnerable to the United States. The Liberals' proposal will continue to hold Canada back and leave its resources unused in the ground.

Conservatives want Canada to compete and to achieve true economic and energy security. That means shovel-ready economic zones and scrapping the cap on Canadian oil and gas. Canadians need affordable, reliable power and fuel so Canada can be self-reliant and achieve real economic independence from the United States. The way we handle our resources lays the ground for the future of our country, a country that is self-reliant and independent, and restores the Canadian promise that anyone who works hard gets a good life in our great Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member across the way on his maiden speech to the House.

I am taking a look at Bill C-5, and I have had the opportunity to ask this question of the member's colleagues in the Conservative caucus. We appreciate the fact that the member is supporting the legislation and that we are going to see it pass on Friday.

Is there anything specific? I have yet to hear anything from the Conservatives saying there is an amendment that they believe would make a difference. Does the member have any sort of a change that he would like to see made to the legislation itself?

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, there are 28 projects right now, in nuclear, uranium, mining, oil and gas, hydro, roads and critical minerals, and they are stuck in the process. These would be great ones to start with, and the laws would not need to be changed.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5, as it currently stands, would allow the federal government to say that it will consult Quebec, for example.

Quebec says no, it does not want a pipeline project within its borders. However, there is absolutely nothing in Bill C‑5 to indicate that a consensus or Quebec's approval would be required before a pipeline could be built.

Is the member aware of this reality? Does he agree that the provinces should have the final say on projects located within their borders?

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listen to the news on Radio-Canada every day. What I believe I am hearing from the people of Quebec and their premier is that they are open to serious negotiations for a pipeline in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Kapiskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk on his first speech in the House of Commons. He mentioned that he had worked in the forestry sector.

What measures could we take to support the forestry sector in Canada through Bill C-5 or other initiatives here in the House of Commons?

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that our forestry industry used to be a world leader.

During the trade wars that started in the eighties, which are still going on after 45 years, there were sawmills and pulp and paper mills in every single province. In Ontario, where I worked, there were 21 pulp and paper mills when I started; there are three left. Let us make sure this does not happen to the rest of our industries.

It is easier to fix than to rebuild. It will take us 20 years to rebuild the forestry industry. We have huge, healthy forests, and we need to process them. If not, they will burn down.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question. This is a very complex piece of legislation. I understand the Conservatives will be voting with the Liberals to support it. What I do not understand is why, with such a complex piece of legislation, the Conservatives voted with the Liberals to prevent the Prime Minister from testifying at committee. They had an opportunity to have the Prime Minister come and explain why this omnibus bill needed to be rushed through so quickly, why this omnibus bill was not—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe, after we have taken a vote on a matter, that it is appropriate for a member to refer to the comings and goings of the Prime Minister.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I understand where the member is coming from.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, on the same point of order.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders clearly indicate we are not able to indicate how a member voted. However, we are able to discuss how parties voted. That is in the Standing Orders.

I would like the member to explain why the Conservatives voted with the Liberals to not bring Mark Carney to committee.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I know where the member is coming from. We cannot use proper names. Let us move on.

We will allow the member an opportunity to respond to the question.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the question be repeated?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, why did the Conservative Party of Canada vote with the Liberal Party of Canada to prevent the Prime Minister from coming to committee to explain why he brought forward this piece of legislation?

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it happens.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C‑5, I think we should all be inspired by La Fontaine's fable, The Tortoise and the Hare. The federal government is behaving like the hare; it wants to make everything happen fast. It is not taking the time to do things properly. It wants to act right now and thinks everything is a matter of life and death. That is just not the case. The tortoise, in contrast, moves slowly. It analyzes everything. It thinks, it ponders and it assesses the situation. It makes sure to do its job properly and it gets to the finish line on time. “To win a race, the swiftness of a dart availeth not without a timely start.”

Here in the House, we are doing the exact opposite of what that famous fable teaches us. Bill C‑5 is the top of a slippery slope. People invoke the U.S. President every day to justify the need for haste. The President used the national interest as a pretext to impose tariffs. The response proposed in this legislation is for the government to have essentially the same powers. Yes, a project of national interest will make it possible to override federal laws, and especially the laws of Quebec and the Canadian provinces. It is the Canadian version of “drill, baby, drill”.

I come from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, a mining region. Laws and regulations exist for a reason. The number of abandoned mining sites in our area is unbelievable. Yes, in the past, the mining industry was a bit careless. Things have changed since then because attitudes have changed, but also because Quebec has passed strong environmental laws. According to Janique Lambert, Quebec's commissioner of sustainable development, there are currently more than 36 former mining sites that will cost close to $600 million to remediate.

As I said, the mining industry has changed. It is a lot more responsible now. For example, to avoid the mistakes of the past, financial guarantees are provided for the redevelopment and remediation of mining sites. Innovative technologies, including those used by businesses in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, also make it possible to do better.

Take, for example, the Dumont Nickel project, which has had an agreement with the Abitibiwinni First Nation since 2007. The Dumont Nickel project will begin in the next year. This proves that agreements can be reached with first nations when they are involved in discussions from the start of a project.

In no way does this bill respect this important philosophy, because the government's bill is fundamentally flawed. Ottawa is going to commit everyone to major projects that will take years to complete, with lifespans measured in decades, meaning future generations will be involved. That is precisely why it is necessary to act like the tortoise. We need to identify the subtleties and provide answers. We must ensure that our bills respond to what we want. Do we want mining permits to be issued more quickly? Yes, but not by sacrificing key aspects and the necessary environmental assessments. The environmental studies that Quebec requires could very well be the “one review”. The Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement is fully qualified to do this.

When the time comes to make a decision on a project, Quebec must always have the last word on its own projects. Proposed section 21 in Bill C‑5 even gives the federal government the right to issue an order to exempt a proponent from the application of any law. It makes no sense. The government will sacrifice everything just to make things go faster. This is like back when big business used to make the government follow its rules. That is exactly how this government is behaving toward first nations. Enough talk; now, sign here.

In drafting this bill, the government fulfilled none of its obligations to first nations. Sending a short letter asking for input in the form of a two- or three-page letter within five or seven days does not count as consultation. Consultation is not just ticking a box. Consultation means meeting with people, sitting down, listening, discussing problems and finding solutions. Consultation does not mean agreeing on everything. It means having a real, ongoing dialogue.

Furthermore, while the federal government recognizes the provinces to some extent—I am being generous—the rights of first nations should be given more consideration. This bill violates the most basic criteria of their rights.

My presence on the ground among the first nations stems from an unequivocal desire to work on reconciliation and ensure that our indigenous communities have the resources to fulfill their ambitions. Bill C‑5 is a serious barrier to reconciliation.

Taking their interests into account means more than just writing “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples” in a bill, especially since this bill targets 13 laws and seven regulations that seek to protect the environment, fauna and flora.

One of these laws is the Indian Act. Among first nations, there are certain principles that guide chiefs and indigenous communities in considering future generations. They think about the next seven generations. That is why, among first nations, the turtle is the symbol of the Earth's creation. In addition to representing America in its shape, it is also a symbol of prudence and longevity.

Today, I went to the Senate to hear what Grand Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak had to say. She said that many of her colleagues could not be there today, as some were dealing with forest fires. She recommends slowing down, taking the summer, getting out and talking to people, talking to Canadians and talking to first nations. First nations know how it feels to have Trump at their borders. She recommends not having Trump-like policies here, but rather taking our time and doing things properly.

Later, she recommended taking the summer, taking the fall, taking the time to go through this bill carefully, talk through it and talk with first nations about it. Nothing is off the table. First nations are thinking about it already. They have had some conversations, but the grand chief was not in a position to tell us what those were. The chiefs will talk it over and decide on a position. She said that we have an opportunity to do things differently and to work together, and she recommended getting everyone to the table.

This is a heartfelt cry from the national chief of the first nations. Her position is shared by the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, AFNQL, which strongly and unequivocally opposes Bill C‑5.

This is a bill that, under the guise of reducing red tape and building the nation, threatens the very foundations of Canada's constitutional order, the rights of first nations and their shared journey toward reconciliation. The obligation to consult and accommodate first nations is not a procedural hurdle. It is not an inconvenience to be dealt with or a box to be checked off. It is a constitutional imperative that is recognized and guaranteed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It has been repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and reaffirmed in Canada's commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill does not demonstrate legislative reconciliation. It demonstrates indifference.

In her appearance before the Senate earlier, Julie McGregor, the legal counsel for the Assembly of First Nations, raised a very interesting point. She said that the duty to consult and the standard of free and informed consent are not operationalized in Bill C‑5. It is interpretive, not included in a concrete way. With more consultation, it would be possible to meet those requirements. Amendments would be required, but we did not take the time to consult first nations. Consultation comes down to consulting rights holders about how to respect wildlife and the hunting and fishing rights that will be affected by the project. That would be the essence of the consultation. Rights holders should determine who should be consulted. That is meaningful consultation.

It is a matter of trusting others. I say that because in the meantime, we are seeing the provincial legislative assemblies mobilize the first nations, as though there were agreements in the different provinces of Canada. B.C.'s Bill 15, Ontario's Bill 5, Nova Scotia's Bill 6 and Quebec's bills 67 and 97 all include the duty to consult indigenous peoples.

Right now, there is a movement afoot to refuse to respect first nations' rights, which will likely create a crisis in Canada. Indigenous leaders in Quebec spoke out against an act to strip them of their land. AFNQL Chief Francis Verreault-Paul says we need to protect biodiversity and our way of life. Respecting the ancestral rights of first nations is not optional for governments. Chiefs in Ontario have made it clear that they completely reject Bill C‑5. They maintain and defend their position, as Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict mentioned. First nations rights holders must be at the table and the government must uphold its constitutional and treaty obligations.

We are headed for a crisis that, unfortunately, will probably not be resolved today, but before the courts, unless we listen to first nations—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate on the fact that, for the first time in a very long time, indigenous people will finally be allowed to participate in projects, to be part of projects and therefore be able to work on the very design and development of these projects, as well as benefit economically from them.

I would like the member to comment on that, because this is new. Bill C-5 includes this promise of a much brighter future for indigenous peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the member for La Prairie—Atateken just said demonstrates a flagrant lack of respect for first nations.

The whole problem with this government is that it promises consultations at a later date. First nations are being asked to sign everything over, and then the government will walk away. It wants to take away first nations' established rights and then trample on them. I am taking a stand against this kind of behaviour on behalf of first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech.

The last Liberal questioner raised the issue of first nations consultations and made it sound like the Liberal government has that all covered. It has decided to appoint an advisory board. Does the member share my wonder as to why the government makes no legal reference to this advisory committee or panel in Bill C-5, in legislation? It seems the government wants to say that consultations are part of the law, yet it does not include any reference to the advisory committee it has put together.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, this is the same fundamental problem. Indigenous peoples are being put in a box. They get offered something so that it can be said that they were given a little sandbox to play in. They will then be told that they have been consulted.

This is not reconciliation. This is not ongoing dialogue with first nations. Action needs to be taken right from the start. The way that this government is acting is irresponsible.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a brilliant presentation. I would like him to come back to the notion of free, prior and informed consent by first nations.

The government keeps saying that it is going to consult with first nations, but the bill only mentions the word “consultation”.

Can my hon. colleague help the government understand the difference between consultation and obtaining free, prior and informed consent?

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

Mr. Speaker, free, prior and informed consent is given by the person in question. It is not something that is imposed on someone else. Basically, it is when the person feels ready to give it, because they have the sovereignty to make the decision and to say when they feel ready to give free, prior and informed consent.

It is not up to Parliament to dictate when first nations feel ready to do so. This is where the nuance lies. It must be done through ongoing dialogue, while giving the other party time to get ready to give their consent. Otherwise, it is what we would call a violation of rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question will be clear, simple and short. Are the Bloc Québécois and the opposition members prepared to work over the summer to make the necessary and required changes to Bill C-5?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question and her sincere interest in this subject. Of course I would like that. The work will continue, because we need to have this ongoing dialogue.

Unfortunately, if Bill C-5 is passed as quickly as is planned, the repercussions of this bill will be dealt with in the courts for the next few years, if not decades.

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

Mr. Speaker, my speech this evening is dedicated to all those we meet on the campaign trail who tell us that their vote does not matter and will not make a difference. We are here to tell them that a solemn election promise does matter.

On the very first page of our election platform, we spoke about the need to refocus the Canadian economy. We are here tonight for the second reading of this bill to assure people that their vote counts. Once elected, a government fulfills its promises. We are here to respond to this heartfelt plea from all Canadians, including the Gatineau constituents whom I have the honour of representing here in the House. We are here to tell them that their vote counts. Indeed, we are here in the House, driven by a sense of urgency and a desire to serve and to fulfill our promises.

Canadians gave this new government a clear and urgent mandate: to build a stronger Canada and an economy that works for everyone. They sent us here to eliminate barriers, unlock opportunities and deliver the results that matter in their daily lives. This is exactly what we are doing.

Just days after this Parliament was convened, we introduced Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, because we are in a period of economic uncertainty. People are worried. Canadians cannot afford inaction.

This bill aims to remove barriers that are holding our country back. It aims to build a Canada that works better together. It aims to deliver real, tangible benefits to Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian communities.

For too long, our economy has been divided, not by ability and ambition but by artificial borders and outdated rules. The one Canadian economy act would address this directly. First, it would remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility. It would make it easier for businesses to operate across the country with no more needless duplication of approvals, no more inconsistencies that raise costs and delay investment. A company in one province will have a clearer, faster pathway to sell its goods and services in another, and the same goes for workers.

In the House, we hear all too many voices that do not recognize the workers having trouble getting licensed in one province or another. Right now, a certified professional in one province may still have to go through redundant processes just to work in another. This slows down hiring, frustrates skilled Canadians and limits where people can go to find opportunity. The one Canadian economy act would help break those barriers down. By facilitating greater coordination across jurisdictions, we will move closer to a truly national labour market, one where people can take their skills where they are needed without unnecessary red tape.

Second, this bill would allow for faster completion of large-scale projects, infrastructure projects that are essential for nation building, projects that support clean energy, conventional energy, housing, transportation—the backbone of Canada's future economy.

Through the building Canada act, this bill will simplify federal review and approval processes for major infrastructure projects. It will encourage coordination, reduce duplication and pave the way for faster and more efficient decisions.

I want to be clear. This will not come at the expense of environmental protection, indigenous rights or public consultation. We will continue to honour our responsibilities. However, we must also recognize that we cannot meet the urgent needs of Canadians if the processes are overly slow. This bill ensures that we are efficient and in line with our shared priorities.

This bill would deliver what Canadians expect from their government: action, ambition and collaboration. We are not here to talk about why things are difficult. We are here to remove the barriers and get things done.

Make no mistake that the barriers we are targeting come at a real cost: a cost in productivity, a cost in jobs and a cost in confidence. The reality is, Canada has some of the most fragmented internal economic rules in the industrialized world. We make it easier, in some cases, for goods to move across international borders than between our own provinces. That is not only inefficient, but it is irrational.

The Senate, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, economists, chambers of commerce and unions have all pointed to the significant ongoing costs of internal trade barriers. That is billions of dollars in economic activity lost every single year. That is billions of dollars that could be invested in growth, in clean energy, in housing and in innovation. We can no longer afford to leave that opportunity on the table.

This bill respects provincial jurisdiction. It represents a partnership, but it is also clear and defines a national understanding: This country's economy must function as what it is, one Canada.

We are introducing this legislation with urgency because the moment demands it. We are facing labour shortages across sectors such as construction, health care and transportation. No one's riding is immune. There are also the skilled trades. We are facing a growing demand for infrastructure, and we are facing a global economy that is moving fast, with countries investing heavily in supply chains, clean energy and productivity. Canada cannot afford to be slow. We must match our ambition with action, and that is exactly what this bill represents.

This bill is also based on optimism, on the belief that Canada works better when we work together. We believe in a country where people are free to build a life, a business and a future without being held back by useless barriers. We believe in a country where provinces and territories work together for economic growth rather than competing with each other through unnecessary duplication. We believe in a country where governments rise to the challenge, recognize the moment and act with determination. That is what we are doing today.

We have all heard people say that some projects will never see the light of day, that they cannot be completed because of excessive bureaucracy and regulations. The various levels of government are often criticized for not communicating enough with each other. This bill is a solemn and very effective response to those criticisms. It allows us to dream.

The other day, I said that a project like the one in James Bay would never have been thought possible. The same goes for Expo 67 and the construction of the Montreal metro. Even building a bridge across the Northumberland Strait to Prince Edward Island would seem out of reach. We have lost the ability to dream. This bill rekindles that ambition. It gives Canadians the opportunity to dream again.

Before this House rises for the summer, we are asking Parliament to give this legislation the urgent attention it deserves. We want to give Canadians back the possibility of dreaming to build and dreaming to build bigger. We want to debate this bill, we want to examine this bill, and yes, we want to vote on this bill.

In the election campaign, our leader said it is time to build. We truly believe that it is Canada's time. It is time to rid ourselves of these needless delays, bureaucracies and rules. It is time to get our ambition and strap it on to meet the needs of this new economic era. Canadians are counting on us to move forward, not stand still. The one Canadian economy act is a win for people, for the Canadian economy, for Canadian workers, for Canadian investment and for Canadian unity.

Long live Canada.

Let us get this work done.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill, in part 1, sweepingly replaces multiple ministers in multiple departments and multiple quasi-judicial entities with a single minister. In clause 6, it says, “The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a member of the King’s Privy Council for Canada as the Minister for the purposes of this Act.”

Can the minister tell the House who the minister responsible for this act would be?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that we—

[An hon. member]

You do not know?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Manitoba seems very exuberant this evening.

What I will tell him is that this bill is animated by a single spirit to streamline these approvals and make sure that we have the ability to dream big in this country, to take on major national projects that can transform our economy and to get rid of these needless overlaps and duplications, whether they be between jurisdictions or inside jurisdictions. That is why a minister is clearly designated in this act for the purpose of shepherding these major projects across the line.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I get the impression that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons dreams of the same Canada as Pierre Poilievre.

If the past is any indication, it is all fine and good to say that regulations are what slows projects down, but the truth is that no proponent wants to pay for oil and gas infrastructure. The last oil sector project was the Trans Mountain expansion. The government got taken for $34 billion.

I would like to hear the government House leader tell us whether public money will be invested in oil or gas infrastructure.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, we have invested heavily in the transition to renewable energy. Every province has success stories to tell, including Quebec. We can be very proud of that.

We Quebeckers can be proud of our green record thanks to people like Robert Bourassa, who dreamed big and had ambitions for Quebec. That is the same ambition that we are trying to harness so we can leave our children and grandchildren an awe-inspiring, ambitious Quebec. The days of a small Quebec are over.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great speech that captured the spirit of Canadians who sent us to the House to make sure that we deliver on some of the most important key things. The member mentioned labour, and I know that he was Minister of Labour at one point. He went across the country talking to workers, so he actually understands the importance of removing these barriers for workers.

Maybe the member wants to expand on the benefits of removing these internal barriers across the country and the benefit that would have on workers, not just in his riding, but across Canada, in all our ridings, as well.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the stories. Whether they be in Newfoundland or in any part of our country, there are workers who want to take their skills and make them portable so they can go to another place. That is why we put in place, for example, the labour mobility tax deduction, so that workers could take their skills more easily and be compensated, just like any white-collar worker would be paid his or her moving expenses for moving to find opportunity in another location. However, the largest frustration is among those who have a Red Seal, who have their ticket, and want to be able to practise their skilled trade from one province to the next but could not get through the red tape and the hassles. We would take that away.

The federal government is showing leadership, and so are provinces. We are going to get it done for them.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to have free trade in Canada by Canada Day. He also promised that all federal and provincial trade barriers would be gone. That raises the question of whether a nurse from British Columbia would be able to work in Ontario, after this legislation is passed, without re-accreditation?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit where credit is due to Doug Ford. Maybe my hon. friend should call him someday. We talk to him regularly, and he has put in place a bill that ensures there is reciprocity for any province that wants to pick up the challenge of these barriers to working. Doug Ford will tell the member if he calls him that the work has been done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech in the House this Parliament, and I would like to take some time to thank the constituents of Edmonton Strathcona for putting their trust in me again. I would also like to thank my incredible team, both in Edmonton and in Ottawa, for all the work they do to help me.

Of course, it would not be a maiden speech if I did not take a moment to thank my dear husband, Duncan, and my two children, Maclean and Keltie, for their support.

Tonight we are discussing the way that Bill C-5 is being pushed through Parliament, and I have to start by saying that Canadians are not short on ambition. Canadians want big, ambitious projects. We want nation-building projects that create good unionized jobs. We want to create secure futures for our families and for our communities, and we want to create infrastructure that meets the needs of the 21st century. We want that; that is clear. That is not up for debate in the House this evening.

In fact, I support the objectives of Bill C-5. The problem I have is that Canadians require a government that can actually deliver. We all want a government that has ambition and has big ideas, but we need a government that can deliver. The way that Bill C-5 has been drafted and the ham-fisted way the government is pushing it through mean that I have a lot of doubt that these projects will get built.

Today I rise to speak out against the way the Liberal government is attempting to ram through Bill C-5. This piece of legislation is not just flawed, but has dangerous overreach that threatens the democratic principles that underlie this House and, in fact, this country.

Let me be very clear. I support the idea of transformative investment. I support creating good unionized jobs. I support building infrastructure that will serve generations to come. However, we cannot and we must not trade away workers' protections, transparency, accountability, environmental protections and indigenous rights in the name of expediency. That is what this bill does. It is an attempt to push forward a nation-building agenda without democracy. That is a problem.

Let us look at what this bill does.

Bill C-5 has two parts, and the first part I have a lot of support for. This piece of legislation would make it easier for workers to work around this country. It would make it easier for us to have one Canadian economy, not 13 economies. It would help. There is potential for it to have some very good outcomes for workers. Of course, as parliamentarians, we have an obligation to do our due diligence to look at this legislation and ensure it is strong.

It is the second part of the legislation that I have really big problems with. It would expand federal authority over how major infrastructure projects are approved. It would centralize power in the hands of a few cabinet ministers, giving them sweeping discretion to decide which projects are strategic or urgent and therefore exempt from the usual federal processes: environmental reviews, consultation requirements, public debates, etc. This means that ministers, not Parliament, not indigenous groups and not Canadians, would decide what gets built.

I am from Alberta and I have seen what happens when decisions about lands and resources are made behind closed doors. I have seen what it looks like when economic development ignores environmental costs. Right now, Albertans are rightly furious with their provincial Conservative government, which has opened up coal mining in the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains once again. I have seen time and time again how indigenous communities are left out of decisions that directly impact their lives and futures. When I see legislation like Bill C-5, which strips away the few checks and safeguards we have, I cannot remain quiet.

This is not just about the Liberal government. Let us imagine a different government, perhaps a Conservative government with Pierre Poilievre. Under Bill C-5, that government would have the power to green-light mines, pipelines or highways without any meaningful environmental assessment, without any duty to consult with indigenous nations and without any debate in this House, all with the stroke of a pen.

Does this sound like the Canada that the Prime Minister ran on? Is this what he told Canadians they were voting for? I do not think so.

Let us be very clear about what kind of power grab this will actually mean on the ground. When transparent processes and meaningful consultation are taken away, what happens? Projects do not get built any faster. They end up in court. Communities feel shut out. Protests and blockades happen. Legal battles drag on for years, and we get no progress. We get gridlock.

This is not hypothetical. It is the history of Canada's broken attempts at nation-building without democracy. Let us remember when Stephen Harper tried something similar. He pushed for Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act. It is a piece of legislation that was designed to streamline infrastructure approvals by curtailing environmental reviews and consultations. As political reporter Althia Raj has mentioned, the building Canada act, Bill C-5, is “the type of legislation that Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper might have been too timid to bring forward, fearing a public backlash.”

Now, why do we have this? It is because Canadians have rejected being out of decisions. Indigenous people have rejected being sidelined. Environmental groups have rejected the erasure of safeguards. Under Stephen Harper, nothing got built. Projects failed. The backlash was real, and the consequences were clear.

Bill C-5 is not some brand new plan. It is a recycled strategy. It is one that history tells us will not deliver on its promises, but instead will fuel conflict, division and delays. If the Liberal government wants to build real infrastructure, real jobs and real nation building, it needs to start by respecting democracy and not undermining it. If anyone is worried about the climate crisis, they should be even more concerned. This bill would allow projects to be declared strategic and pushed forward without evaluating their long-term impact on our water, air, wildlife or emissions. That is not planning for the future; that is gambling with the future.

I want to speak directly to the workers in my province, those who built this country and weathered the ups and downs, the booms and busts of Alberta's economy. They deserve good jobs. They deserve stability, but those things cannot happen if the federal government thinks that it can sidestep environmental and indigenous concerns. Anyone who has ever built anything knows it has to be built right the first time.

Let us not pretend that there is not an urgency. Donald Trump has turned everything on its head. There is an economic urgency to act. There is a climate crisis, and there is urgency to act.

Canadians need to build more. We need to start building more with Canadian workers, Canadian products and Canadian resources. It is urgent, but urgency does not give the Liberal government, or any government, a blank cheque. I am proud to be part of a party that fights for good jobs and good governance. I will not accept the false choice between economic ambition and democratic accountability. We can have both. In fact, we must.

I say to my colleagues in the House, let us build. Let us build things. Let us build big things with Canadian workers. Let us build things with Canadian products, but let us do it right. Let us protect workers' rights. Let us protect indigenous rights. Let us protect the environment. No more pushing legislation through, because what happens then is that nothing gets built.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always find it somewhat interesting that we have the NDP here in the House, and then there are NDP governments, whether it is in British Columbia or Manitoba. Wab Kinew has been absolutely fantastic, recognizing the value of legislation of this nature. The former premier of Alberta Rachel Notley was a very strong advocate for the importance of pipelines. Then we get the NDP members here in Ottawa, who continue to go to the far extreme left.

I know there are leadership ambitions, potentially, on the other side. Does the member not recognize that the legislation we have before us today is good for all Canadians? Why would she not support the principles of the legislation?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member perhaps did not hear what I said, because I said that I actually do support big nation-building projects. However, when we do it wrong, as Stephen Harper did, when we do it wrong, as Bill C-5 would, those projects do not get built. They end up in court. There end up being protests. There end up being blockades, because the Liberals are not doing the hard work to ensure we are doing adequate consultation.

That is to say nothing of how undemocratic it is to ram a giant bill like this through with two days at committee and with no parliamentary oversight. For a man who speaks so much in the House of Commons, one would think the member would have some sort of respect for Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague back to this place.

There are many things I could focus on from her remarks, but I think it is worth drilling down on one piece of clear misinformation. She made the comment that Stephen Harper got nothing built, which is outrageous and verifiably false. Many pipelines were built under Stephen Harper. The northern gateway pipeline to tidewater was approved, and significant progress was being made on the east-west pipeline. The Liberals passed legislation designed to kill those projects, which were already approved or in the process of being planned.

Will the member maybe seek to clarify her false claim that nothing was built under Stephen Harper and identify the projects that were built under Stephen Harper?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the one thing we can actually prove Stephen Harper built in this country was a whole bunch of division, a whole bunch of groups that were muzzled, scientists who were muzzled. Oh, and he also built what I believe was seven affordable homes during his decade.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona on her excellent speech. It was reasonable and heartfelt.

I would now like her to comment on the impact that the lack of a proper environmental assessment process would have on the people in her riding in Alberta. What repercussions will this have on future generations in terms of pollution or the destruction of habitats and ecosystems?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in Edmonton Strathcona, what people want to see is a reasonable approach to developing nation-building projects. My dad was a truck driver. My family works in the oil and gas sector. Having projects stopped in court and held up in gridlock because we do not do the proper work is a real problem.

We also need to make sure we are protecting our wild spaces, protecting our wildlife and ensuring that the environmental protections Canadians have worked so hard for are not able to be run roughshod over by a minister. I think that is what Albertans want to see from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak at second reading to Bill C-5, but I wish I never had to speak to the bill, because I wish I had never had to read the bill. Reading it and understanding it has been one of the most crushingly depressing experiences I have had since I was first elected to this place in 2011.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona quoted noted journalist Althia Raj saying this is the kind of bill Stephen Harper would have liked to bring forward, but he would not have had the nerve.

This is an abomination, and it is not necessary in the quest for building a strong Canadian economy. It does not remove the interprovincial barriers to the extent they need to be removed, because that is not within the federal government's purview to do with the stroke of a pen. However, it says it is going to. It is going to remove some of the barriers the federal government can.

The next part of the bill, part 2, which is rather a separate bill and should have been dealt with separately, is an entirely different construct and unlike anything I have ever seen before in legislation.

Let us try to walk through this calmly and dispassionately and urge the government to rethink the way this bill is being run through Parliament within four days. This is not defensible. The bill requires amendments; it requires study. I have heard many Liberal members in this place, including the government House leader, stand up and say they want it studied. Well, if they want it studied, they have to schedule hearings. They cannot take place in less than 24 hours and be called hearings that heard from witnesses and experts. The programming motion is as offensive as the bill itself, and that is actually saying quite a lot about it.

I have been struggling with trying to decide which adage this bill really proves, “Haste makes waste” or “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”, because both are undoubtedly true.

What we have here is an astounding bill that gives cabinet and the Prime Minister, and only them, the power to make decisions alone in the cabinet room, and implement their own ideas, with no mandatory criteria.

Let us look at part 1, which is the part that is getting the least attention. When I read it, I thought, “Well, labour mobility is a good thing.” I have been railing for years about the need to get rid of interprovincial trade barriers, particularly for creating an east-west, north-south electricity grid. That is something we desperately need in the quest for climate action.

There are things we need to do across this country to make us a truly modern, industrialized nation. Living up to the calls for justice for the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls commission inquiry, I would say we must have safe, reliable and affordable public transportation across this country. We have lost bus service, and Via Rail is inconsistent. That is a true nation-building project; it was actually Pierre Berton's national dream kind of nation-building project. However, we do not need to start out by saying in part 1 that we know what we are doing and that we are in such a hurry that we run the risk of reducing standards that protect health and the environment.

I was called up short when I got an email from the Canadian Cancer Society, because my initial response to reading part 1 of the bill was that I did not have to worry about it; labour mobility is a good thing and harmonizing standards is a good thing. It was not until I read the Canadian Cancer Society's memo that I remembered how getting rid of regulations in the U.K. under Margaret Thatcher led to mad cow disease, because all the red tape, all the things that seemed meaningless, actually protect health and the environment. Getting rid of regulations just to get rid of them is not very smart, as the U.K. realized during the mad cow horrors.

What we have in part 1 that is identified by the Canadian Cancer Society is the idea of comparable standards, which are not defined, and saying that if there are standards that are exercised at a provincial or territorial level, they could be adopted for goods that are in commerce even if they are weaker than the federal standard. The Canadian Cancer Society asks us as parliamentarians to exercise some caution and to amend the bill so there would be a carve-out for health and environmental standards so they would not be weakened.

Businesses looking for profits are, of course, looking for a weaker standard if it helps them make more money. That is the way business works. It is just the reality. We do not want to put in place and incentivize a race to the bottom. Part 1 was getting a lot less attention, so I wanted to stress the Canadian Cancer Society's concerns.

Again, part 1 and part 2 should have been split. They do not have enough in common to be treated as a single bill. I appreciate the Bloc Québécois's efforts to get these two quite separate bills decoupled, but that will not happen, as we will be rushed to finish everything within four days.

Just moments ago, it was referenced that we will have a committee study starting tomorrow afternoon for a bit and then again on Wednesday. One committee will study the bill, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which means that the bill, with profound implications for the environment and indigenous rights, will never be studied by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, nor by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development or the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

What part 2 says is that there would be a decision by cabinet about what project qualifies as being in the national interest. There is a definition of national interest if members want to find it, but it is entirely a tautology. A national interest project means what cabinet has decided is a national interest project.

Members can see what would lead to the decision that it is a national interest project. I am sure unintentionally, but many members in this place have stood up and said not to worry because a project must meet all these factors, so it is certainly going to be a good project. The factors listed in subclause 5(6) are good factors, and if they were requirements before a project was listed in the national interest, I would have an entirely different view of this act. It says in subclause 5(6) that cabinet may consider any factor cabinet thinks is relevant, including the extent to which a project can meet the factors that I guess are here for public relations benefit:

(a) strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security;

(b) provide economic or other benefits to Canada;

(c) have a high likelihood of successful execution;

(d) advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and

(e) contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.

All of that means exactly nothing, exactly zero, because it is a suggestion that cabinet may consider anything cabinet may want to consider. Cabinet members may want to consider some of these things, but they do not have to, and that is a question of just considering them.

I have never seen anything like this in any legislation, so forgive me, because I would rather analyze than talk about how many pieces of propaganda have been woven into this discussion. However, subclause 6(1) is so remarkable that it needs to be at least referenced quickly. From the moment cabinet decides a project is in the national interest, it says:

Every determination and finding that has to be made and every opinion that has to be formed in order for an authorization to be granted in respect of a national interest project is deemed to be made or formed, as the case may be, in favour of permitting the project to be carried out in whole or in part.

In other words, the instruction to future decision-makers, different ministers, for different pieces of legislation is that before they look at the evidence, they have to remember they are exercising their discretion toward getting a project done, regardless of what they find out when they start studying it. This is the ultimate in leap before we look. As environmental lawyer Anna Johnston from West Coast Environmental Law said, “Bill C-5 tosses aside the notion of informed decision making, the precautionary principle and the imperatives of reconciliation, the climate crisis and democratic decision making.”

When we look at a bill like this, we think that we have a parliamentary process for a reason. We have a debate at second reading, it goes to committee, we hear from witnesses, it gets studied and then we amend it. However, everybody is in a hurry. No jobs are going to be saved, because we moved too fast to notice that what we are passing is an abomination. Yes, it would lead to more court cases and, yes, it would lead to more delays, but if nothing else, it would lead to an excess of power in the hands of cabinet that would never be reversed. In that, it is an abuse of Parliament itself.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from the Green Party for always raising issues of importance, for being the conscience of this place in so many instances and certainly for being such a stalwart for environmental protection.

As is often the case, we get kind of stuck on one idea or one notion, and a couple of words come to mind, certainly from the Conservative Party. The only kind of idea that they think about when they suggest a project of national interest is an oil pipeline. However, I see lots of other opportunities in this bill. I see wind west, an electric grid from coast to coast and a corridor for high-speed rail. I see a lot of opportunity here for green infrastructure and infrastructure that increases our opportunities on renewables.

I thought I would give the hon. member an opportunity to expound on some of those.

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

Mr. Speaker, surely and yes indeed, we support our economy in Canada and projects in the national interest, but even with a really great goal, we need interties. As I said, the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. We need to link our electricity grid east-west and north-south.

Suppose we want to link eastern Manitoba with western Ontario, but we decide we really do not need to worry about all those boreal forests and indigenous rights, and we just railroad right through something. It then turns out that we have breached treaty obligations to indigenous peoples, and they have traplines throughout those boreal areas that need to be protected. The siting of electrical grids needs to be carefully considered with indigenous rights in mind.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Ayn Rand once wrote about the way that socialist societies work. On the one hand, they create so many regulations that everyone is in violation, but then, on the other hand, the government will give individuals a “get out of jail free” card if they have preference and benefit from crony capitalism. That is the way that socialism would work. This might be an area of agreement with the member.

Does the member believe that we should just reduce those regulations and let everyone build those projects or that we should keep those regulations the way they are and no one should build those projects?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say something that perhaps will shock some. Bill C-69 was an abomination. It continued the Harper process of moving to discretionary project lists instead of the tried-and-true, 40-year experience this country had with federal jurisdiction and the federal government having an obligation to review its own projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That act was working well until the spring of 2012, when Harper repealed it. When he put in place his own act, that was the act that Kinder Morgan was being reviewed under and that is what caused the delays.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say in light of her extensive experience. I believe she has had the good fortune of working alongside governments for many years, if not decades.

Does she recall ever having seen anything like the government's plan in terms of powers and the danger of weakening environmental protections?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is unlike anything I have ever seen. It is actually unprecedented. I have never seen a government grasp for quite this much power. It is truly unbelievable.

Every time a government or prime minister's office seizes more power, the next government seizes more after that. Therefore, the things that we decry today as opposition members, whether Liberals in the past now do the things that Liberals used to decry, Conservatives now will decry things that they will expand upon another time if they get—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleague.

My question is in relation to indigenous rights, which the member referenced on a number of occasions. Nothing in the bill that I can see would override constitutional rights for indigenous communities. Can she elaborate on why she feels that is in jeopardy by virtue of the bill itself?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a tautology problem. In order to designate a project in the national interest, we have already denied indigenous people free, prior informed consent. It is the way it works. We need a time machine to make this thing work not to offend the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As to section 35 rights, the problem again is that it says there must be a consultation, but it does not use the term “meaningful” consultation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be carried on division.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #13

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

It being 11:40 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:40 p.m.)