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

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

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 third time and passed.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Internal Trade]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is at a critical moment. U.S. tariffs are battering our country and threatening to push the world economy into a recession. Hard-working Canadians are losing their jobs, businesses are losing their customers and investors are holding back.

A few weeks ago, I travelled to Saskatoon with the Prime Minister and my colleagues, the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. We met with the premiers of the provinces and territories. We discussed our plan to strengthen Canada's economic foundations, including through a unified domestic market. We agreed that we need to work together to build Canada.

We agreed to move together quickly to get this done. 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. According to a 2019 study by the IMF, the impact of these internal barriers is equivalent to imposing a 7% tariff barrier on ourselves.

A 2016 report by Trevor Tombe and Lukas Albrecht in the Canadian Journal of Economics found that removing all barriers to internal trade and labour mobility could lower prices in Canada by up to 15%. A 2016 study by the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce found that lifting barriers to internal trade could boost productivity by up to 7%.

Free trade in our own country makes sense. For our businesses, it means a bigger domestic market and less red tape.

For workers, this means more opportunities, more jobs, the freedom to pursue their careers anywhere in the country without barriers that penalize them, and the assurance that their qualifications will be recognized no matter where they live. This fundamental freedom to move and work will strengthen individual autonomy and the national social fabric.

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 shelves. 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. A trucker should be able to drive from the 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 the modular homes we need to build more homes faster and more affordably.

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.

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 that moment and turn that love of Canada that we all have 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.

What is really great is that today, momentum is growing across the country to build one Canadian economy. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have all already passed legislation to remove barriers to internal trade. British Columbia has introduced its historic economic stabilization act. Quebec is advancing its own legislative reforms. Also, I do want to take a moment to salute the leadership of Alberta on this important issue.

The provinces are working together. 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. Our provincial colleagues get it. They are doing the work.

This legislation that we are voting on today, together, is about all of us, members of Canada's national Parliament, joining the provinces in their hard work and doing the federal government's fair share. This bill is an important step towards free trade in Canada.

I want to be clear. Even after today's historic vote, there will be more work to be done, and it is incumbent on all of us to maintain the momentum, to get to truly free trade and truly free labour mobility across our great country, to really build one Canadian economy.

That is why, on July 8, the Committee on Internal Trade will meet in Quebec City to push this effort forward and why, on July 15 and 16, my Department of Transport is bringing together leaders from across the country for a two-day hackathon in Toronto to cut red tape for truckers.

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

These are not partisan goals. In fact, colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been championing some of these issues for some time, and I am grateful to them for their work and for their support of this legislation.

That is because this bill is about nation-building priorities. This is a bill that will be good for every region, every business and every Canadian. This is a bill about Canadians trusting each other and working together as Canadians. It is about us doing what Australia did three decades ago, through mutual recognition. That action in Australia pulled that great country together and made every single Australian a little more prosperous. It is high time that we as Canadians do the same thing. I am so delighted and so proud that that is what we are doing with this legislation.

What a delicious irony it will be for all of us, as Canadians, to respond to the tariffs imposed from abroad by finally tearing down the tariff and trade barriers that we have imposed on each other. Let us get this done once and for all. Let us come together and deliver free trade in Canada. Let us do this together.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question. Last fall, our hon. colleague resigned from the former government's cabinet because she felt she had lost confidence in former Prime Minister Trudeau's fiscal negligence.

How does the minister rationalize this new Prime Minister's fiscal negligence, which is even worse than Justin Trudeau's?

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

Mr. Speaker, I did what needed to be done in December. It was a hard thing to do, but it was the right thing to do for our party and for our country.

I was very proud, in the past election, to campaign under the banner of our new Prime Minister. I am very proud to be advancing legislation that will do what I said in my resignation letter we needed to do, and that is build Canada in response to the U.S. tariffs.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is well aware that the Bloc Québécois supports the first part of the bill, which the minister also supports.

I have a more technical question for her. Once the bill is passed, we believe that Quebec dairy producers and slaughterhouses could quickly be federally licensed. Basically, we would no longer have to rely on the federal government and they would quickly receive a licence.

Can the minister tell me approximately how long it would take for slaughterhouses to become federally licensed once the bill has received royal assent? What is the timeline?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for supporting this part of the bill.

I would like to point out that Premier Legault is in agreement. When we were in Saskatoon, he very clearly stated that the meeting was constructive. As he said, “We will continue to support Quebec's grand economic ambitions, create good, well-paying jobs and strengthen our economy in the face of Donald Trump's threats.” We agree.

Slaughterhouses are definitely one of the things that can really grow Quebec's economy. The member—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The deputy House leader of the government.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for running on a banner that promised Canadians the building of a strong economy.

Maybe the minister can talk about how the bill would impact regions like my region in southwestern Ontario, a region that often faces bottlenecks and interprovincial barriers. What impact would there be for workers in our region?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have been hearing from businesses across the country, including businesses in southwestern Ontario, is that our barriers to interprovincial trade are so high that often, after a business was strong enough to expand beyond its local market, the first thing a Canadian business would think to do was export to the United States. That is very much true of southwestern Ontario with its strong cross-border trade. That is one of the reasons the legislation is so timely and so appropriate.

As we are facing tariff barriers from south of the border, now is the moment to make it frictionless for our businesses, including businesses in southwestern Ontario, to trade with other Canadians. It is what we need to do.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are now at third reading of Bill C-5, our final opportunity in the House to speak to the legislation before it moves to the Senate.

Let me start here: Canadians are not short on talent, we are not short on ambition, and we are certainly not short on natural resources. What we are short on is a government that knows how to unleash that potential and get things built. I hear all the time that people are ready to work, businesses want to expand and communities are waiting for critical infrastructure, but over and over again we run into the same thing: bureaucratic bottlenecks, over-regulation, and a government more interested in announcing headline-grabbing projects than permitting economically important ones.

The bill is about getting big things built, and that should matter a whole lot. Faced with the economic challenges of their own creation, the Liberals have said numerous times recently that this is the moment. What would have met the moment is scrapping Bill C-69, scrapping the shipping ban, and scrapping the oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax.

At committee, Conservatives rolled up our sleeves and got to work. We saw that the bill would create a series of loopholes that would have allowed ministers and the prime minister to bypass Canada's ethics laws, the Conflict of Interest Act, lobbying rules, the protections under the Criminal Code, and the Auditor General Act, among others. Under the original draft of the bill, a minister could have approved a project that would benefit their own investments, and no one would have been the wiser.

We also saw that the bill as originally drafted would have given the government too much power, so we fought back, and we won. With the support of opposition colleagues, Conservative MPs passed amendments to close loopholes, ensure stricter controls and bring about transparency and accountability.

We made sure that public office holders would have to recuse themselves in the event of a conflict. We established a mandatory national security review for foreign state-owned proponents. We added a public registry of projects, clear rationales and a timeline to publish criteria within 15 days of royal assent. We created a mechanism for parliamentary oversight, requiring regular reporting. We mandated public consultation reporting. We forbade the government from exercising extraordinary powers when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued.

Conservatives made the bill better. We delivered transparency, oversight and guardrails. I want to thank my colleagues on the transport committee for their hard work.

However, let me be clear: While we made it better, we cannot pretend that the bill is the be-all and end-all of meeting the moment. Let us look at part 1 of the bill, which is about free trade and labour mobility within Canada. It sounds ambitious, but in reality, it is far more limited. There are no binding timelines, no penalties for delays, no incentives for provinces to actually remove trade barriers and no framework for a blue seal licensing standard that would allow professionals such as engineers, nurses and skilled tradespeople to work across the country based on national credentials.

At committee, we heard from Catherine Swift, president of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada, who summed it up well: Canada has been talking about internal trade for three decades, report after report, announcement after announcement, but it is still not nearly enough meaningful action. The fear is that the bill would only add to that pile and it would become just another press release without a solid plan to move forward.

That is why Conservatives have been proposing a better way to provide financial incentives for provinces that eliminate barriers, which would be a win-win; it would boost GDP, increase revenues and allow provinces to reinvest in important infrastructure projects. The IMF has estimated that removing internal trade barriers could raise Canada's GDP by as much as 4%. That is real growth, real paycheques and real opportunity, but very little of that is in Bill C-5. Again, the bill does not do enough to seriously address the economic headwinds that Canada is facing.

Now I will go on to part 2 of the bill, the building Canada act. This section is supposed to fast-track major projects that are in the national interest, but instead of real reform, we get a selective shortcut. We get all the red tape, bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 remain in place, and there are no clear criteria for what makes a project eligible. There is no certainty for investors, just more discretion handed to the ministers who have failed to deliver time and time again.

Yes, Conservatives improved the bill at committee, but flaws remain. We heard from Dr. Exner-Pirot, director of natural resources, energy and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, at committee. She warned us very bluntly that global capital is mobile. Investors are not going to wait around for a country that takes years to approve a pipeline or transmission line. In fact, they are not waiting; they are going to the United States, they are going to Australia and they are going to Norway, to countries with the same environmental standards but faster, clearer and more reliable approval processes.

We cannot ignore the warning signs. Canada has dropped in global rankings for competitiveness. A lack of clarity, slow timelines and politicized approvals are driving investment away. Conservatives believe in a better path: one-and-done approvals, a national energy corridor and shovel-ready zones. We all want to see worthy projects proceed, not just the ones that are politically favourable that particular week or month.

We are in an era of fierce global competition, urgent infrastructure needs and historic opportunity. While the legislation sets a framework, there is more to be done. There needs to be a clear model for approvals, and impediments to approval need to be cleared, such as, again, Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the production cap, and the industrial carbon tax.

It is important that we step back for a moment and look at the bigger picture. Canada, in the past decade, has ranked dead last in the G7 for economic growth, and 80% to 90% of our energy exports still go to the United States at a discount. Our farmers, miners and manufacturers are boxed in by regulations that serve no one. As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce told us, internal trade barriers act like a self-imposed 21% tariff, and yet we wonder why productivity is stagnant, investment is down and young Canadians cannot find opportunities at home.

Meanwhile, Trump's tariffs are escalating. Our competitors are attracting investment while we are repelling it. The government's answer cannot be another layer of process and platitudes, more bureaucracy and empty promises while opportunity slips away. We are in a moment that calls for ambition, that calls for reform and that calls for leadership. Instead, the government gives us something that sounds good but fails when it meets the reality of the Canadian economy, and Bill C-5, despite the title, despite the spin, still does not do enough to change that.

With the final vote in the House expected shortly, Bill C-5 is poised to become law by Canada Day. Conservatives made it more transparent, more accountable and more secure. We stood up for taxpayers, we shut the back door to insider influence and we forced the government to answer for its overreach. Conservatives made Bill C-5 better, but many challenges remain. Canada is falling behind because we make it too hard to build, too hard to work across provinces and too hard to trade within our own borders. Canada has everything the world wants and needs; we need to address what is holding us back.

Bill C-5 takes a small step forward. Is it enough? No. Is it the right direction for a change? Yes, and that is why we will not hold up this modicum of progress. We are the party of building, and so we will not stop fighting for real change. We will hold the government to account for what gets done for the results. We will keep fighting for what really matters: paycheques, productivity, and a future that unleashes Canada's great potential for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, page 1 of the Liberal Party election platform made it very clear that we want to have one Canadian economy. The Prime Minister has delivered on that commitment to Canadians.

By July 1, because we will be passing the legislation in the next couple of hours, we will have an opportunity and a framework that are going to enable and complement things such as the first ministers' meeting that the Prime Minister had with all the premiers, the first ministers, and there were a lot of good discussions that took place. Premiers of all political stripes are on board. The national government needed to step up, and we have stepped up with a new Prime Minister and a new administration.

My question for the member is this: How would he reflect on the overall team Canada approach that was clearly demonstrated at the first ministers' meeting just two weeks ago?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, are we going to have free trade in Canada and the $200-billion opportunity by Canada Day? No, we are not. There is a framework, but there is a lot to do. We just heard the minister's speech, and a number of things are still going to happen in July, with a meeting of the minds and convening, which is something the Liberal government is very good at, but we are not seeing action.

If we want to talk about a team Canada approach, I would remind the member for Winnipeg North that the premier of my province, Premier Ford, has been one of the premiers who have called for the scrapping of Bill C-69, as I have indicated, which is one of the impediments to building things. It is going to stop them from building projects in Ontario as well.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Windsor West, we are proud of Trisha Haldar, a grade 8 student from Bellewood Public School who just won Canada's top science prize for inventing a tool to help families understand dangerous drug interactions. Her project was inspired by her love for her grandmother, and it is a reminder of how bright and capable young Canadians are.

Meanwhile, the government's Bill C-5 would bury billions in new spending with little transparency. As there is no budget being tabled, it would hike our national debt and there would be no meaningful investment in the next generation of innovators like Trisha.

If a 13-year-old in Windsor can solve real problems with a great science project, what is my colleague's view on the government's failure to table a budget that would help real Canadians?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, there are very bright people in Windsor and in southwestern Ontario. A 13-year-old has figured it out. It is a shame that this 13-year-old cannot have the future in Canada that she should be able to aspire to because of the policies of the last 10 years of the government.

The Liberals are not going to be tabling a budget this session, which is ending today. We are going to have to wait for the fall. No budget equals no plan. The man with the plan has not delivered a plan at all.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a misunderstanding about what nation building is. In fact, this bill has been called a fast track to the Supreme Court, meaning no building of the economy and no new jobs.

I am wondering why the Conservatives are supporting a bill that is going to spend more time holding up projects in the courts than getting things done on the ground.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre was with us at committee and had a chance to ask questions of witnesses as well. I share some of the skepticism she has about some of the answers we received from ministers, for sure.

As I said, we believe Bill C-5 is a small step in the right direction, but there is still much to be desired. We did, of course, add amendments that added a number of pieces of legislation the government cannot circumvent. One of them was the Indian Act, and there were other things. Otherwise, the government would have been handed a completely blank cheque and an absurd amount of power to run roughshod over federal legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill C-5.

I would first like to thank my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for all the work he has done, despite the challenges posed by situation resulting from the gag order. He has worked with the Bloc Québécois as our constituents expect us to work in the House, that is, with the thoroughness and transparency.

Transparency is precisely one of the issues I would like to address today with regard to Bill C-5. In fact, there are two issues I would like to address: the fact that this bill would exempt proponents of major projects from laws and an ethical issue, which I will address in the second part of my speech.

Clearly, the Bloc Québécois does not support Bill C-5. I am going to repeat what some of my colleagues have said, because it is important. Imposing this gag order is one of the most serious attacks on democracy since the Emergency Measures Act, which replaced the War Measures Act. The government has decided to circumvent democracy.

No matter who was elected here, I do not believe that voters want to see their MP support a bill that seeks to circumvent the democratic process. I am not talking about the gag order here, but rather about the bill itself, which allows the democratic process to be circumvented and its means, powers and possibilities to be stripped. As I said already, once a project is designated in the national interest, its developer will be able to circumvent any federal statute or regulation. That is huge. The decision of what is in the national interest lies in the hands of one individual. However, I note in passing that “national interest” has not been defined yet. What does national interest mean? What falls in that murky category? This is, indeed, also a matter of murkiness.

Of course, now, we are trying to protect various statutes by proposing amendments to the bill. I myself tabled an amendment to exclude the Canada Labour Code from the list of statutes and regulations. I must say the list seemed infinite. It includes the Fisheries Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the marine mammal regulations, the port authorities operations regulations and more.

These are all statutes that we will be able to circumvent. Of course, "we" excludes the person speaking. However, these laws protect the population as a whole, be they Quebeckers or Canadians, by guaranteeing that projects respect the principle of the common good. Bill C-5 actually does away with those guarantees. These laws were duly voted on, considered and debated, yet we are being told that they basically have no purpose, because Bill C‑5 is above those laws. In fact, the expression I just used, "to be above the law", summarizes exactly, perhaps even to my surprise, what Bill C‑5 is proposing.

I would also like to point out that clause 21 remains, despite the Bloc Québécois's request to remove the schedule from the bill, which was rejected. Clause 21 allows the government, by a simple order in council, to exempt proponents from the application of any law, no matter which one. That is also very concerning. Federally regulated businesses have just been protected under the Official Languages Act. Just imagine the Income Tax Act or the Criminal Code. The entire text of the bill, including the schedules, allows for exempting major proponents from laws that have been duly passed by the House of Commons.

That is the first item I wanted to talk about. In my opinion, a law that supercedes all other laws leads to opaque and arbitrary decisions, which is unacceptable. That brings up the subject of ethics. What is opaque and arbitrary is the opposite of what is ethical and of what our constituents expect. What they want is transparency. What they want is accountability. What they want is to have a say. That is what democracy is all about.

That is not what is happening with Bill C‑5, however. In its present form, the bill allows the government to consider and evaluate the projects according to five evaluation criteria. One criterion is whether the project could “strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security”. The criterion of whether the project could “provide economic or other benefits to Canada” is very broad. Being feasible is also very broad. The criterion of whether the project considers “the interests of Indigenous peoples” theoretically protects the Indian Act, but what about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Considering interests is not at all prescriptive; it sounds optional. As for projects that “contribute to clean growth” and to meeting Canada's climate change objectives, it is very clear that the stated criteria or objectives are not necessarily the ones the government wants to apply. We all see how much backpedalling our theoretically new government is doing in that regard.

The minister can actually ignore those criteria entirely. It is like they are trying to convince us that we will be protected by guardrails of some kind, but the fact is, they do not even have to pay attention to those guardrails and that, too, is unacceptable. Once a project is designated as being in the national interest, the minister can issue approvals at every stage, and no one will be privy to the nature of the projects or the conditions they have to satisfy. After that, there is no turning back, which is unbelievable. Projects will be approved in advance behind closed doors, and the public will not know a thing. The decision will already be final. The government says that there can be consultations or discussions afterward, but the fact is, the decision will have already been made. I know this will not be the first time the government has held consultations after making decisions, but this is still a very big deal. The text of the bill is very clear. Consultation may happen, but whatever the government wants to do will be done. We will just have to live with the consequences of decisions made behind closed doors.

Closed doors, stupidity, selfishness and personal interests are things that humans are familiar with. When people make hasty decisions or buy shares in a company, for example, they tend to forget that, in fact, they we should be serving is the common interest, not their personal interests. I am not saying that that is necessarily what is happening, but it is a strong possibility. Everything is hidden. How can we know whether everything is being done properly and in accordance with the will of the people?

I will give one last example: the Brookfield issue. We know that the Prime Minister has a stake in Brookfield. I would like to point out that Brookfield owns railway lines, which are covered by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants, which are covered by Bill C‑5. Pipelines are covered by Bill C‑5. Companies that design, build and operate nuclear power plants are covered by Bill C‑5. The oil sands are covered by Bill C‑5. Port facilities are covered by Bill C‑5. In my opinion, while I am not saying that there is a conflict of interest, there is at the very least an appearance of a potential ethical breach. Bill C‑5 opens the door wide to this type of situation, which the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes.

I touched on only two things in my speech, but they are two things that I am sure the people in my riding and the people of Quebec would disagree with. The government's lack of transparency and decision to grant itself all the powers without an informed debate and vote are unacceptable.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, less than two months ago, we received a clear mandate in the last election. One of the challenges is putting some major projects on the table. The Prime Minister has met with the premiers of the provinces and territories. The goal is to put major projects on the table.

In Quebec, there is a lot of talk about Hydro-Québec, connectivity and connecting Quebec with Newfoundland and Labrador. If I am not mistaken, the Hydro-Québec project will be very close to my colleague's riding. I think that it would have a significant positive economic impact.

I would like to know how my colleague will support the bill. She said earlier that she wanted to support the people, and she talked about how she would vote given that she represents her constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, the north shore produces more electricity than any other administrative region in Quebec and, I believe, more than any other place in Canada.

However, the Government of Quebec has never received a penny from the federal government for Hydro-Québec. We never needed federal government help for that, not then or now. I think that my riding is doing just fine without federal involvement in Hydro-Québec. We do not need Bill C‑5 to build hydroelectric plants.

If the government really wants to look into what goes on in my neck of the woods, I would point out that some people in my riding live in areas where there are no roads, no docks, no air transportation and no bridges for getting home. They live on islands, and they are isolated. It would be an excellent idea to look into that.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member had a great speech, and she has concerns, which I share with her, concerning transparency. We know that there are some issues with the Prime Minister with regard to his disclosure and the conflict of interest reports.

I am just wondering what her constituents think about the lack of transparency from the government. We know that there will not even be a public list of projects that are in the national interest.

How can she go back to her constituents to say that the government is listening to the people when she knows full well that there is no transparency?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the government is not being transparent but, unless I am mistaken, I believe that my colleague's party wishes to vote in favour of the bill. To me, that is one and the same. It does not matter which side someone is on if everyone votes the same way and there is no transparency. I see no difference there.

I would like to ask my colleague the same question. Why is he voting in favour of the bill if he believes there is no transparency?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is always very thoughtful, careful and professional.

I would like her, as the Bloc Québécois critic for labour, to say a few words about the fact that the government, in its original proposal, did not exempt the Canada Labour Code from the application of the bill. The work of the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, with the support of my colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, ensured that an amendment was proposed to exclude the Canada Labour Code from the bill.

According to her, why did the government keep it in and wait for us to propose an amendment?

Why did it not occur to the government that it should not touch this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate my colleague's thoroughness and the relevance of her comments.

I would respond that that question also occurred to me. Why did the government forget? Why did it make such a list, to which nearly any law could be added because of the possibilities that are included in the bill itself?

I think it was written quickly. They also want the House to pass it quickly and they do not want to consult anyone. I am proud that the Bloc Québécois has been able to defend certain aspects. For example, we talked about the Canada Labour Code because the unions themselves wondered about it. I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that the unions support it, but the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, came out and said no, it did not support the bill.

People need to be consulted. The government should not be imposing closure.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about the one Canadian economy act, which seeks to build a stronger, more competitive and more resilient Canadian economy. I am also here to talk about our intention to identify, defend and complete projects of national interest for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I will also talk about the measures to eliminate trade barriers in order to unlock our full economic potential and make Canada stronger both nationally and internationally.

These measures were at the heart of the commitment we made to Canadians during the election. We were clear and transparent. In our platform, we talked about creating one Canadian economy, not 13. To do that, we have to start by getting rid of internal trade barriers. During the election campaign, we also talked about implementing projects of national interest.

Over the past few days, I have been a little taken aback to hear opposition members express their surprise at what Bill C‑5 contains. Our intentions were clear, written down in black and white. During the election campaign and afterward, we said time and again that we wanted to strengthen and unify the Canadian economy. Over 8.5 million people across the country voted for our ambitious plan to strengthen and unify the Canadian economy. That is the most votes any political party has ever received in a Canadian federal election.

What comes as a bit of a surprise to my opposition colleagues is how quickly we are moving to meet Canadians' expectations. After only four weeks in the House, we have put in place concrete measures, through Bill C‑5, to strengthen internal trade and make it easier to carry out major national interest projects. This is on top of other measures, including a tax cut for Canadian families and historic investments in defence. I think that what surprises the opposition even more is our determination and our ability to take concrete measures to strengthen our economy and deliver on our commitment to the Canadian people.

A lot of the response to Bill C‑5 has been very positive. For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has stated that now is the time for bold action to ensure we stop holding up nation-building projects. I myself organized a meeting with the chambers of commerce in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, and I can say that people are very interested in the various legislative measures we have introduced over the past month here in Ottawa.

I understand their enthusiasm, because this is a hinge moment in our nation's history. The world is changing rapidly. The rules of the global economy are being rewritten, particularly because of the tariffs and disruptive trade actions coming out of the United States. We did not ask for a trade war, but one thing has become clear: We will do whatever it takes to build long-term prosperity for Canadians, and we will do it on our own terms. We can no longer take stability and access to global markets for granted. In order to secure good jobs for workers, improve our standard of living and keep life affordable, we need to quickly strengthen our economic foundations here at home. It is important to understand that the best way to make life more affordable for Canadians is to get to work building a strong Canadian economy that can sustain programs that save families thousands of dollars a year.

Building a strong economy means unlocking our country's full potential and getting past the red tape and duplication that have held us back for too long. It is time to transform the way we do business as a nation. Bill C‑5 lays out our government's clear intention to proactively identify and advance projects in the national interest that will propel Canada into the next era. These projects will stimulate economic growth, strengthen energy security and supply chains and create long-term sustainable jobs. Once we determine that a project is in the national interest, it will go ahead right away, not 10 years from now. There will be a one-and-done federal approval process. The current system of overlapping barriers and reviews will be replaced with a clear path forward.

We urgently need to do things quickly, but there is more to it than that. We also need to demonstrate clarity, confidence and Canadian leadership on the world stage. We need to send a clear signal to investors that Canada is committed to seeing projects through to completion. That is why our government will set up a new federal major projects office, which will serve as a single window for proponents and partners, consolidating work that was once done by several organizations.

The new major federal project office will act like the biggest infrastructure hub in Canada, a hub to guide every project with clarity, reliability and transparency through the federal process. Instead of getting lost in a government maze, developers will have a single point of contact tasked with reporting to Canadians on the progress made. This will make the “one project, one assessment” approach real—another commitment that was at the heart of what we promised to Canadians during the last election. That means fewer administrative formalities, more certainty and better results, not just for investors, but also for workers, communities, indigenous peoples and the environment.

The time of endless debate on determining whether projects should get built is behind us. For the projects that meet our strict criteria, the question instead will be: How are we going to build and how fast can we unlock the benefits for Canadians?

Thanks to this bill, once a project is declared in the national interest, we will provide a single, consolidated document on the federal conditions that will replace years of work on permits, reviews and regulatory uncertainty. That is what the industry, developers and the provinces asked us for. That is what this moment calls for. This will be accompanied by a clear consultation that the indigenous peoples will participate in and a commitment to always protect our natural environment.

No other G7 country is progressing as decisively as Canada. Bill C-5 marks the end of a culture of delay. We are a government that is defined by living up to expectations. As a new member, I am proud to be part of this new government led by our new Prime Minister.

Let me be clear. Our determination to build does not mean abandoning our values—quite the opposite. In fact, our vision can only succeed if it reflects those values. I am thinking of values such as partnership with indigenous peoples, respect for the environment and responsible stewardship for future generations. Every project of national interest will involve significant consultation with indigenous communities. This is the only way to build with legitimacy and unlock generational economic opportunities that are inclusive and sustainable. We have already committed—not just with words, but with tangible policies—to economic reconciliation, including doubling funding for the indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion. It supports indigenous ownership and ensures that the prosperity generated by nation-building projects can also benefit indigenous communities today and for the long term.

When it comes to protecting the environment, Bill C-5 does not undermine Canada's world-class protections. It asks a simple question: How do we build big projects responsibly? From consultation requirements to robust permit conditions to ambitious climate goals, our projects will set the new global standard for responsible development.

We are not here to manage the decline. That is not how we do things in Canada. We are here to seize opportunities. We are here to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, thanks to this bill. My conversations with my constituents and with Canadians across the country have led me to believe there is no challenge Canadians cannot overcome if we work together, as one team, one economy, in one big, united country.

The one Canadian economy bill and its approach of developing projects of national interest are an invitation to rebuild with intention, pride and hope. Let us seize this moment. Let us rise to the expectations of this generation and leave an even better country for the next. Let us work together to build a strong Canada.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we are happy when any project finally gets built in this country, after 10 years of the Liberal government trying to stop everything, but this is an example of the Liberal government causing problems and creating a new program to try to fix them.

Why would the member not just tell his caucus to please just scrap Bill C-69 and Bill C-48?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we were elected with a clear mandate in the last election. It is a mandate to achieve great things, to be bold and ambitious in responding to the challenges of our time. Bill C-5 is in keeping with this spirit.

With Bill C-5, we will be able to move forward more quickly on projects of national interest. This is consistent with the “one project, one review” approach. We understand that we must act now to strengthen the Canadian economy, unify it to create good jobs, stimulate the economy and make Canada's economy the strongest in the G7.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the passionate speech from my colleague across the aisle, and I congratulate him as he is just starting out as a new member of the House.

He just mentioned the “one project, one assessment” approach on environmental matters.

Today, the Premier of Quebec reiterated to the Prime Minister of Canada that projects must be determined based on Quebec's recommendations and that the only environmental assessment must be Quebec's assessment.

What does my colleague think of what the Quebec premier is calling for?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the government will have a legal obligation to act in accordance with the purpose of the act and to expedite projects of national interest, while maintaining rigorous environmental standards and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples.

Projects that will be subject to an impact assessment will be reviewed by existing regulatory agencies to identify the conditions necessary to protect Canadians and the environment. The designated minister must consult with other relevant ministers as well as provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to ensure that these conditions are sufficient.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his lively and vibrant speech.

Since my colleague is from New Brunswick, I would like to know what he thinks about this. One of the bill's goals is to remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility.

What does his riding in New Brunswick expect to gain from the major change that this bill is expected to bring?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

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

I consulted the chambers of commerce in my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, and I talked with people. We clearly want less red tape. We want to facilitate internal trade, especially given the uncertainty surrounding trade with the United States. My riding has a long border with our southern neighbour and five ports of entry. Our economy is quite heavily integrated with the U.S. economy.

A bill like this one is very appealing to business owners in my riding. It facilitates access to markets in other Canadian provinces and makes it easer for them to sell their products and services.

It is certainly being very well received and my region, like many others across the country, expects it to generate significant economic benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the Liberal culture of delay. In my experience, it takes a long time to change a culture. It takes time. It takes more than words, spoken or written. Culture changes through action.

What action are you going to take? It takes time.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 is a concrete example. It has been four weeks, and we are removing internal trade barriers and strengthening Canada's economy through projects of national interest. We have passed a tax cut for the middle class and made historic investments in defence.

Clearly, our new government, led by our new Prime Minister, is action-oriented and practical. We want to meet Canadians' expectations.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to represent the wonderful people of Long Range Mountains.

I have sat in the House and listened carefully to many of the debates on Bill C-5.

Let me begin by stating clearly that, of course, Conservatives support natural resource development. We always have. For nearly a decade, Conservatives have been pressing the Liberal government to repeal the legislation that has been blocking responsible development in regions right across the country.

We know that Canadians are living through deep economic uncertainty, and they are looking for a serious plan that would give that certainty, but they also want to create competitiveness in the private sector and have a plan that creates jobs, attracts investment and delivers hope for the future. The building Canada act is the government's answer to this moment.

As Conservatives, we agree with building Canada and creating growth in our economy. In fact, I campaigned on it. After close to 50 years, a traditionally Liberal riding flipped. That was because the people of Long Range Mountains recognized that, while we have a province rich in natural resources, we also have some of the worst economic outcomes in the country. They believed that a Conservative government would unlock the opportunities in their communities.

We are thankful that the Liberals have finally recognized that this is extremely important to Canada and Canadians, but unfortunately, this plan would give way too much power to politicians to pick and choose projects. Thankfully, our amendments have decreased some opportunity for Liberal corruption, but despite having the most resources per capita of any country, our economy has had the worst economic growth in the G7, and we have become more dependent on the United States because of Liberal laws that have blocked resource development.

Canada's unemployment rate in May was at its highest level in over eight years, excluding the pandemic. Youth unemployment has skyrocketed, and Canadians cannot afford groceries. Quite simply, we are not meeting our potential, and the legislation before us is supposed to be a part of charting a course for Canada's economy and our economic future. Unfortunately, this legislation does not give the confidence to workers, businesses or investors that we need in this situation.

What is deeply concerning is the method by which the projects of natural interest get to be selected or, thereafter, taken off the list. The legislation would give sweeping power to cabinet to pick winners and losers behind closed doors. Once a project is declared a national interest project and added to schedule 1, all required federal authorizations are automatically rubber-stamped, but the Liberals can thereafter remove them from the list. This is not reforming the current system. It is a power grab, and it is political favouritism.

In addition, the creation of the bill by the Liberals is effectively admitting what Canadians already know, which is that their own laws have paralyzed our ability to build and grow. Rather than fix the broken system and get rid of the laws that prevent us from developing our natural resources, like repealing Bill C-69, the energy cap and the industrial carbon tax, they are creating an exclusive shortcut for a select few based on political convenience. The bill trades fairness and long-term certainty for more centralization and more Liberal control. Canadians deserve better.

Conservatives want to protect Canadians from government corruption while also developing our natural resources and unlocking our immense potential, which means stopping Liberal ministers from circumventing conflict-of-interest laws. Thankfully, Conservatives have added amendments that would remove this ability. However, we should allow the private sector to drive innovation and growth, but the Liberal government insists on picking winners and losers. I ask why this is. Instead, and I say this once again, it could simply repeal the bad policies that block projects. What about all of the major resource and infrastructure projects, which are already stuck in the federal system, that may not be deemed national interest projects? These are all with the growth of the Canadian economy, jobs and investment on the line. Where is the fast track for them?

In Newfoundland and Labrador, there are projects caught on the other side of federal red tape and regulatory paralysis. These projects will grow local economies and provide growth and financial prosperity for rural communities in my riding. Where is the fast track for them?

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have wanted to see our natural gas sector developed for years. Recently, the province released its assessments on natural gas resources, highlighting that it could drive economic growth. However, we know the Liberals have driven away proponents looking to develop this resource, not because it was not viable but because the federal process dragged on so long that they simply just walked away.

On this point, everyone will remember the Liberals' 2022 announcement with the German chancellor, when Canada was asked directly to help Europe reduce its reliance on Russian gas. The chancellor actually visited my riding, and he made it clear that Europe would really like Canada to export more LNG. Our allies were looking to us for a reliable, democratic energy supply. Newfoundland and Labrador could have been a part of this opportunity, but instead of answering that call, the Liberals claimed there was no business case for Canadian LNG.

Under the legislation as it stands right now, all of the same Liberal ministers will get to choose which projects get hand-picked and fast-tracked. Furthermore, in that moment, with a great opportunity for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the government pivoted to hydrogen. Now, several of these projects are trying to launch wind hydrogen operations in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberals picked projects with promises of wind-powered hydrogen exports, new infrastructure and thousands of jobs. However, like so many other Liberal announcements, what was promised with cameras rolling is now wrapped in all kinds of uncertainty.

Recently, it was revealed that Newfoundland and Labrador is owed millions of dollars in unpaid fees from green energy companies, a development that raises serious questions about the financial viability of these projects and whether the multi-billion dollar investments touted by the government will ever materialize. Some owe a collective $13.7 million in fees due in 2024 for the use of Crown land.

Politicians got carried away with announcements and hand-picked projects, but the real tragedy is that Newfoundland and Labrador missed out on an opportunity to provide Canadian LNG because someone in Ottawa thought that they knew best. This is a perfect example of why top-down decision-making does not work. It is not just about energy policy; it is about trust and credibility.

There are lots of projects that the Liberal government has failed to get built. When the Liberals say they are creating a new fast-track process under Bill C-5 for a select few national interest projects, why are the ones we already have across this country stuck in limbo? Why do Liberal cabinet ministers get to decide what is on the list and what is not? Jobs are being lost to delays, while cabinet gives itself the power to pick favourites. Since the government has admitted that its own legislation has created this problem, and it is now trying to bypass it with shortcuts, does it not just make more sense to repeal the legislation?

If this is truly a new government, as the Prime Minister and all his front bench have claimed, then they should prove it to Canadians by repealing Bill C-69, removing the industrial carbon tax and scrapping the emissions cap. These measures would restore certainty and ramp up our economy, including our rural communities, so we can become a self-reliant, sovereign and independent country.

In the meantime, as Conservatives, we intend to hold the government to account on this legislation to be sure Canadians are protected against Liberal corruption.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to a new government, and it is, in fact, a new government administration with a new Prime Minister.

We have seen tangible actions since April 28, just a number of weeks ago. The Prime Minister, working alongside the Liberal caucus, presented legislative initiatives, such as the one that we are debating today, which was on page 1 of the election platform. We are checking it off. It will, in fact, pass. The Prime Minister has already met with the first ministers. He has met with the G7 countries. We have a very proactive Prime Minister, fixated on Canada's economy and making it the strongest in the G7.

My question for the member is, does she not believe in a team Canada approach?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with all the Liberal government touts. I have been hearing, over and again, the Liberal talking points for days.

My point is that this top-down approach of cabinet ministers sitting in ivory towers in Ottawa has proven to not be effective at getting our natural resources developed. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have suffered immensely as a result of this approach by government deciding it knows best. This is the problem: the arrogance and the idea that it knows best and it touts itself. Meanwhile, people are out of work, out of money and out of time. It is time to get to work.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member. She is very critical of the Liberal government. She has a lot to say. She is highly critical of it, so what I do not understand is why she voted in favour of time allocation to pass Bill C‑5 quickly, with no debate, with no experts, with nothing.

She criticizes it, but what she is not saying out loud is that she is happy with Bill C‑5. The Liberals have served up a nice little bill that she herself would probably have liked to introduce.

Why did she agree to pass a bill without debate?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we believe in moving the economy and natural resource development forward. We do not want to be seen as standing in the way. Some development is better than no development, but we would rather see the antidevelopment legislation repealed. That is our suggestion to government.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I was knocking on doors in Newfoundland and Labrador, it was very common for Canadians to say they were not voting because all politicians are corrupt.

I heard my fellow colleague mention corruption. I wonder if she may see the bill, Bill C-5, as perhaps leading to more corruption.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador. Our ridings share a lot of commonalities, and we hear a lot of the same things at the doors. It is absolutely true what he is saying. People feel that Ottawa is so far away that politicians are completely out of touch, and they just do not trust them.

My concern is that we are continuing in the same vein and giving the Liberals way too much power to make decisions that are not in the best interests of Canadians or the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been less than two months since the election.

What parts of this bill will please the people my colleague met while going door to door?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my colleague was listening throughout my speech, but several times I made a plea to the government to repeal the antidevelopment legislation. That is what would make the people of my riding happy.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost one of the last to speak before the final passage of this bill. Numerous questions remain unanswered, which is normal, because there has been limited debate on this bill. We have heard from almost no witnesses and we did not have the opportunity to move many amendments. This bill was tabled in a rush to respond to the tariff crisis. I will say right off the bat that I am not an engineer. I am a social worker and manager; I managed shelter beds. However, I must admit that I fail to understand how this bill responds to the tariff crisis.

It is strange because Mr. Legault, the Premier of Quebec, spoke with the Prime Minister of Canada today and asked him to act quickly to support the sectors that have been affected by the U.S. tariffs for a few weeks now. Those include the aluminum and steel sectors, but also the forestry sector, which is not mentioned much on the other side of the House. The Liberals have trouble saying “forest” and “forestry industry”.

Quebec's premier told the Prime Minister of Canada today that something had to be done for Quebec's regions, where the forestry industry creates good jobs. The sector is really struggling. I do not understand what the bill we are debating will change or improve for people in Quebec's forestry, aluminum and steel sectors.

I think it is an excuse to act quickly, justify the urgency and grab powers that are excessive and akin to those in the Emergencies Act. There is nothing to justify this urgency. There is nothing to justify botching the debate on this bill, which literally transforms the way of doing business and reflects the Liberals' affront to democracy. After a short four weeks of work and after the prorogation of Parliament, when we had not sat since December, the first thing the government did was introduce a bill that we did not even have the opportunity to debate. We cannot get on board with that.

I may be a bit suspicious, but how does it look when a bill is rushed through right before summer, when people are spending more time grilling than watching television? It certainly limits exposure to criticism. Nobody will make the Liberals justify their actions. That goes double for the Conservatives, because they are complicit.

In the last Parliament, our Conservative colleagues called us the “Liberal Bloc”, but nothing beats the Liberal-Conservative alliance. They are thick as thieves. I saw them all smiling and having fun during the vote earlier. Folks on both sides of the House are happy. At last, they can impose their vision, ignore laws and trample on provincial jurisdiction. No obstacles will stand in their way. Gone is the need for accountability, transparency or consultation with indigenous nations, Métis peoples and the territories. This is unprecedented, yet no one seems upset about it.

Only Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party members dared to stand up and cry foul. I am a down-to-earth person. I am all about facts, and I like to do the research, but I have failed to find an answer to the question I asked off the top. I think we are being scammed. They want us to believe there is an emergency, but it does not justify this bill.

I want to point out that the Premier of Quebec said something to the Prime Minister of Canada. I would like to quote him, because these are his words, not an interpretation. Our premier said:

However, I pointed out that projects on our territory must be identified based to our recommendations, and the environmental assessment must be performed by our government.

This morning, I was listening to the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, who did not seem to acknowledge that we were talking about a Quebec environmental assessment, saying it was probably going to be Canada's environmental assessment.

I think it is pretty clear to everyone what is going on.

We disagree with the second part of the bill because these discretionary powers, the ability to govern by decree without consultation, which the government is proposing in collusion with the Conservatives to circumvent who knows how many laws, are beyond the pale. We are talking about laws that were passed because of a need to protect species at risk and our water. These laws serve a purpose. After all, they were passed here, in the House of Commons. They were passed because of abuses, because nature, biodiversity and the environment were not being respected. People went too far. That is why laws were passed.

This bill proposes to suspend them. The government wants to suspend these laws for any project deemed to be in the national interest, but I cannot find a definition of that in the bill. The words “national interest project” appear 23 times, but I cannot find a definition. I cannot find it because it does not exist. It exists only in the mind of the minister who will decide whether a particular project is in the national interest. This is serious.

The people across the floor have the audacity to say that this will boost the economy and build a stronger Canada. One thing is certain. Lawyers are going to make money. This bill will not survive. It will be challenged by civil society groups, by indigenous nations, perhaps even by a province. That is because it makes no sense. It makes no sense, especially considering how it was passed, without democratic debate, without consulting citizens, without consulting scientists. This is serious.

I was elected in 2006. I have been a member of Parliament for almost 12 years. This is the first time I have experienced a situation like this. This is the first time I have seen such disrespect for this democratic institution, the Parliament of Canada. When something like this is done in a hurry and pushed through, I always wonder who benefits. Who stands to gain from this?

I wonder about our Prime Minister's transparency. We know that Brookfield owns railways, a sector that will be impacted by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants, which will be impacted by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns pipelines and even a company that builds and operates nuclear power plants, which will also be impacted by Bill C‑5.

By refusing to disclose his financial situation, is our Prime Minister not leaving himself open to the appearance of a conflict of interest?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had many opportunities to work with my colleague, but I think she is well liked here in Parliament. I think she can appreciate that using a word like “scammed” is a bit of an exaggeration.

I would like her to consider the fact that Canadians asked us to do this. This is the mandate that Canadians sent us here to carry out. We won 44 seats in Quebec because Quebeckers also want us to build an economy that works for all Canadians. I am sure they would not be pleased to hear the word “scammed” being used in the House today.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I highly doubt that Quebeckers voted for the Liberals so they could implement the Conservative agenda. Quebeckers voted for the Liberals because they were afraid of the Conservative leader, Mr. Poilievre, and they were afraid of Trump. They felt safe with the current Prime Minister.

However, they never voted to be handed a bill that will impose a pipeline and other unwanted projects on Quebec, with no prior discussion about choice or environmental assessments.

I highly doubt that is what Quebeckers chose.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear, I think it goes without saying that we do not share the same opinion on this issue.

We understand the Bloc Québécois does not want projects to be fast-tracked, particularly projects allowing for a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, liquefied natural gas projects and pipelines.

There is one thing, however, on which I agree with my colleague, and that is the lack of transparency by the Prime Minister. She talked about it at the end of her speech. It is rather troubling. We agreed on some amendments with the Bloc Québécois to ensure the government would have to comply with ethics laws.

I would like my colleague to say a few words herself about this lack of transparency and the current Prime Minister's many conflicts of interest.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that would deserve a long answer, but I would like to tell my colleague that we agreed on a few important amendments: removing the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Indian Act so that they are excluded from Bill C‑5. However, without the participation of the Bloc Québécois or the NDP, with the support of these Conservative amendments, this was not part of the original bill.

What worries me, and I will say this sincerely, is that there was an amendment that was rejected by both sides, the Conservatives and the Liberals. It was the one that made it clear that provinces and indigenous nations had to be consulted before projects were approved. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted against that. I do not call that being in agreement.

If I may, we agree on the first part of the bill. We are pleased that it was split, because there are benefits, in part 1, to eliminating interprovincial barriers, especially for dairy farmers and slaughterhouses.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my colleague. She said it; she is a pragmatist.

Someone said earlier that Quebeckers had voted for a Liberal government. I would like to hear her opinion on the fact that Quebeckers may have voted against themselves. Proposed section 7 states, “Before recommending that an order be made...the Minister must consult”, if he considers it appropriate, with indigenous peoples and the provinces and territories, for example.

The minister will consult if he thinks it is worthwhile. In my opinion, that is not respecting the provinces.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks that is what Quebeckers voted for.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously not.

If I do so say myself, Quebeckers will never agree to a pipeline running through their territory without first being consulted and without an assessment by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. Not a chance.

I will say quite frankly that all members of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party will fight, to the death, any project of that nature.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, over the last short while, because, of course, we were given very little time, I have expressed very serious concerns about Bill C-5 as it relates to the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples, the protection of our environment, and workers' rights. I would like to thank my very brilliant colleague, the member for Vancouver East, for helping us split the bill to ensure that the Liberals and the Conservatives cannot hide behind interprovincial trade barriers to violate indigenous rights and accelerate the climate emergency.

In spite of the amendments, my concerns remain. The building Canada act constitutes a clear breach and violation of indigenous rights under the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Yesterday, in his press conference, the Prime Minister insisted that indigenous peoples are “at the heart” of Bill C-5. In a way, he is correct. The violation of the rights of indigenous peoples is indeed at the heart of this bill, and indigenous leaders who travelled to the Hill this week have confirmed this loud and clear.

In response to questions both at committee and in the House, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations failed repeatedly to provide clear answers to the serious concerns raised by indigenous people and leaders. Bill C-5 would have serious and far-reaching implications, as it would allow ministers and the Governor in Council to determine what indigenous rights “may be adversely affected” or what will “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”. However, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations seems content to simply state that section 35 rights of the Constitution Act of 1982 are mentioned in certain provisions of the bill, or that her government will establish a $40-million advisory circle for what she characterized as “guidance”.

As legislators, we are guided by the rule of law. We are guided by the Constitution and treaties, and for the last 150 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has been providing clear guidance with respect to aboriginal rights and treaty rights.

Furthermore, Bill C-15 requires that the government must ensure that all laws of this Parliament are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 19 of UNDRIP reads, “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples...in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

I asked the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations at committee if this obligation was respected. Her response was no. Why? It is because Bill C-5 was, in her words, an “accelerated” process. The minister likes to point out that section 35 rights are mentioned in Bill C-5 and will be upheld, but always remains unconvincingly vague about how her government will achieve that. Allow me to provide just one example around modern land claims agreements.

Modern land claims agreements, considered as treaties under subsection 35(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982, contain distinct environmental and review processes in which the indigenous signatories have a direct involvement and participation in decision-making and appointments. These processes would be replaced by ministers and cabinet under Bill C-5. That constitutes a substantial amendment to these treaties and agreements. This normally and legally requires the consent of indigenous signatories. Consent has not been obtained from indigenous peoples to make these substantial changes.

The grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, in his correspondence with the government, correctly reminds us that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is a modern treaty within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution. As such, it has a constitutional status that prevails over any inconsistent legislation. Consequently, Grand Chief Wapachee has specifically proposed the following, and I quote: That the proposed building Canada act expressly provide that it shall not apply to any project to be carried out, in whole or in part, in the territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

This is just one example of many that compels indigenous leaders to strongly believe that Bill C-5 has the very real potential to lead us all to the courts, with the equally real risk of further delays and job losses. We are not building a strong economy. We are building cases for the Supreme Court of Canada. It is the kind of legislative behaviour that has resulted in the federal government spending between $500 million and $1 billion annually fighting indigenous peoples' rights and status in courts.

Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler claimed, “If you pass this Bill C-5 it will be a long hot summer.... We will not sit idly by and watch any government whether it's Ontario or Canada...come to our territory and take...whatever they want because it is ours.”

It is not just the rights of indigenous peoples that are being violated. The building Canada act risks eroding workers' rights, giving the minister the ability to bypass critical legislation protecting workers and eroding standards surrounding health and safety. Even beyond these glaring attacks on workers, Bill C-5 would also be a job killer since the government failed to undertake the necessary consultations and fulfill its constitutional obligations, meaning the legislation would inevitably get tied up in the courts, stalling any sort of economic growth.

Beyond these issues, countless environmental organizations have warned that Bill C-5 would accelerate the climate emergency, placing countless people across Canada at risk. In fact, one in four Canadians is suffering the adverse health impacts resulting from the climate emergency. Ecojustice says the bill gives “sweeping power for the Prime Minister and his cabinet to exempt major projects from Canada’s most important federal health, safety, and environmental laws” and that it encourages “backroom politicking and closed-door negotiating with powerful corporations.”

Right now, half our country is literally on fire. The health of one in four Canadians is being impacted by extreme weather events, and these events will only get worse, as we know. Weakening environmental standards will only make this worse in the future. Nobody voted for an undemocratic concentration of power, violations of indigenous peoples' constitutional rights, environmental degradation or attacks on workers.

The Liberals, supported by the Conservatives, are holding our country hostage to prioritize big corporations' interest over everything else. We urge the government to slow down, to reflect and to not let the bill go through in its current form. We urge the government to honour its obligation to obtain free, prior and informed consent and to significantly amend the bill to uphold constitutional obligations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the approach that the NDP has chosen to take on Bill C-5. The member and I both represent Winnipeg ridings. Both of us understand what Canadians, and Winnipeggers in particular, want to see. They are very much concerned about the economy. They are concerned about jobs. They like the aspect of having one Canada economy.

We have Premier Wab Kinew, who understands that, has been working with other provincial jurisdictions and participated in the first minister's conference that was hosted by the Prime Minister. There is a great team approach, yet we have the NDP playing around. It is just becoming more and more isolated and irrelevant to the whole debate.

Why does the member not recognize what the people of Winnipeg, and Canada, said during the last election? They want a one Canada economy.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank goodness for the member for Vancouver East for splitting the bill. The NDP does support removing interprovincial trade barriers and will be voting in favour of that part of the bill.

What we will not vote in favour of is violating constitutional rights, violating the section 35 rights of indigenous people, violating section 35(3) constitutional obligations, violating UNDRIP, violating environmental standards and violating the health and safety of workers. We will be proudly voting against this nation-building scheme that is going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent and heartfelt speech. We hope that it will open the minds of some members in the House.

I would like her to comment on the following. Does she think that this bill is consistent with the reconciliation movement that we have been pursuing with indigenous peoples for several years now? Does it fit in with that, or does it take us in a completely different direction?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just asked me a question. He represented, up until recently, a part of Winnipeg with the highest number of kids in care. Indigenous people are very supportive of building a strong economy. Indigenous leaders, in fact, have said we are not against it. What we are against is the violation of our constitutionally enshrined rights.

This is going to put us decades backwards. Any strides we have made in terms of reconciliation, we are going to lose if the Liberals and the Conservatives continue to team up and pass this bill. What is it going to look like? I was around during Idle No More. This is going to be Idle No More 2.0 because we will not sit idly by while our rights are being violated.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her ever-diligent and vociferous attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and holding the government to account. The government, and particularly the member for Winnipeg North, seems to claim that under this bill, part 2 of the bill, it actually respects indigenous rights through its consultation provisions. The Liberals seem to be oblivious about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the consultation requirements stipulated in that.

I wonder if the member can enlighten, particularly, the member for Winnipeg North.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite colonial with the member for Winnipeg North, particularly because indigenous peoples and nations from across this country have been very clear that the government has not fulfilled its duty of free, prior and informed consent. Organizations including AFN, ITK, NAN and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs have come forward and called out the government. They have not received—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have a point of order from the member for London West.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that we use parliamentary language. Calling another member of Parliament any name is not accepted, so maybe the member could retract that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would ask all colleagues to be judicious in their language, and if the member would be willing to retract the one offending word, we can carry on.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not retract the word, calling the government “colonial”. I will not.

[An hon member]

Oh, oh!

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I said his words were, his approach, and I—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

The time has now expired for that. I will take it under advisement. I thank the member for London West. We will take it under advisement. We will review the blues and get back to the House.

We are now resuming debate.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will recognize the territory from which I speak today: I am at the annual general meeting of Friends of Nature, a wonderful small group in Nova Scotia on the territory of the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy. When I accepted the invitation, I foolishly thought we would be having an election on the fixed election date, but here we are on June 20, the last day of the very short session of the current Parliament following the election, under a new government.

I know it is a new government, because I do not think this could have happened under any other government. This is called the new government's honeymoon period. I used to think, I like to think, that in honeymoon periods, acts were consensual. This is anything but consensual, but Bill C-5 is before us now for its final vote.

I want to take a moment, if it is all right, to say that I do appreciate the Speaker's ruling earlier today that we will vote on part 1 and part 2 separately. I want to make it clear that the Greens definitely support bringing down interprovincial trade barriers. We desperately want to see a national approach that makes Canada at least as co-operative and effective between and among different jurisdictions as is the European Union, which deals with separate nation-states, many of which were certainly in the oral history of my childhood from parents who lived through the Depression and the Second World War. We certainly knew countries that now co-operate fully in the European Union were, a short time ago, relatively speaking, at war with each other.

Here we are in Canada, and we have less co-operation. The European Union, for instance, has a viable electricity grid that works across all its jurisdictions. It was able, after Putin's invasion of Ukraine, within months, to plug Ukraine into the EU electricity grid. We do not have one in Canada that we can plug into. The province of Nova Scotia has very, very high utility rates, and it stills burn coal for electricity, which other provinces have ceased to do. It could buy everything it needs from Hydro-Québec if only we had the interties to have a Canadian electricity grid. It has been something that hurts our economy and certainly hurts our businesses and many sectors.

We do not act like a country, but worse than that, we often do not think like a country, so I was very excited to hear the new Prime Minister's commitment to bring down interprovincial trade barriers. We certainly also need labour mobility; we need to recognize it across provinces, and that means working with many regulatory bodies. For instance, for doctors, we need to deal with the appropriate medical societies within each province to make sure the health care professionals we so desperately need can be recognized more quickly.

It is an awful shame, then, that I find I have to vote against part 1, and that is because of concerns raised to me directly by the Canadian Cancer Society with the way the bill is drafted with respect to the way a recognized standard at a provincial level could be recognized and could replace a stronger standard at the federal level. Had the bill not had the programming motion that pushed it through before anyone could think twice, I think that could have been fixed quite easily.

Most legislation like this would include a carve-out, an exemption, for health and environmental protections, but we were too busy. The Prime Minister and his government were in too big a rush. I question why that would be. It certainly could have been fixed easily. I cannot vote for it as it now stands.

I do not want to see another Walkerton in Canada, and I do not want to see what happened in England when Maggie Thatcher got rid of unnecessary regulations: the spread of mad cow disease. We really do not know the cost of getting rid of valuable regulations until we are dealing with a crisis. Many regulations can be removed. Much red tape is in our way, but we need to look before we leap. The bill is all about leaping before we look, and definitely that is the case in the “build Canada fast” section, the identification of projects in the national interest.

That is the key question. What is a project of national interest? How do we determine which projects are truly in the best interests of all nations in Canada? How do we find the common destiny of all provinces, territories and indigenous peoples? How do we determine which projects are truly in the national interest?

The bill leaves it a mystery. What is a project in the national interest? There is a definition section in the bill that tells us that a project in the national interest can be found in schedule 1. Of course, schedule 1 is blank, and we can find out what is going to be put there because cabinet is going to decide, and there are no fixed criteria or anything reviewable later on as to why a project was in the national interest.

It could be that the main factor taken into consideration is polling. That would not be against this law, and there would be no way to challenge it in court later. It could be that everything put forward by cabinet is absolutely brilliant, and I will be cheering for it, like an east-west-north-south electricity grid or a public transit system that works for people in the way the inquiry on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls wanted. It was made a call for justice that there be public transit so that vulnerable people like indigenous women and girls would not be forced to hitchhike, because there is no way to get from A to B in a wealthy, modernized, industrialized country like Canada unless someone has the money to own a car or buy a plane ticket.

There are many projects in the national interest that we need. The Prime Minister said that free, prior and informed consent and the rights of indigenous people are “at the heart” of Bill C-5. I do not want to rewrite his speeches for him, but I suspect what he really wanted to say was that it is in his heart. It is what his government cares about, but it is nowhere to be found in Bill C-5.

I suspect our first big national interest project is going to be something of a moon shot. It is going to be building a time machine, because we cannot get free, prior and informed consent unless indigenous peoples, first nations, Métis and Inuit are in at the very beginning of the conversation, before it gets put on the national interest project list. For that, my friends, we need a time machine to go back in time to do the consultations that will not have happened, because with the way the legislation is drafted, it cannot happen in advance.

I am all for a time machine, but I do not think it is very practical. I do not think it is likely to happen. I think like many leaders in indigenous communities do. As Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said in her testimony to the House and the Senate as national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and as Jody Wilson-Raybould has said, our former minister of justice and someone who really understands the rights and title of first nations in section 35, this bill would do violence to the efforts we have made, inadequate as they are, toward reconciliation.

This bill has clauses that are completely unbelievable, such as clause 6, which would deem that decisions made in the future are already going to be in favour of the project proceeding, even before we have either listed the project or studied it. That is a fascinating provision, a provision that only Henry VIII could have come up with. The kinds of powers the government would be taking onto itself are unknown in modern times, and they should have remained so.

I will be voting against both part 1 and part 2, with reluctance. I would love to be on board. I want the government to succeed because Canada has to succeed. We must have a successful country that stands up against the arrogance and threats of the Trump administration, but we do that through economic sovereignty. We do not do it by imitating Trumpian moves, like deciding the central power needs more power. We do not do it with the bravado of signing statements that are meaningless. Laws in this country should be drafted with precision. Words have meaning when they are in legislation. Words in press releases and promises are good, as long as governments respect the things they have said in elections, but to say they mean something and care about something is rather a hollow claim when they produce a bill like Bill C-5.

This makes me so very sad. I think it is a real tragedy that the first bill introduced by this new government is so dangerous, as we have seen in recent days and weeks.

All I can say at this point is that it breaks my heart. I want to be with the new government. I want to be with my colleagues and stand for one Canadian economy, but we need to think it through. We cannot make it so with the bravado of a great signing ceremony and a bill whose laudable ends are undermined by appalling drafting and a claim for powers that no government should hope to achieve.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very significant day today. The Prime Minister and Liberal candidates from across the country made a solid commitment as part of our election platform to build one Canadian economy. It was on page 1 of the platform. Sometime in the next half-hour, we are going to be passing Bill C-5. That is a checkoff. That is something the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus pushed through to fulfill a solemn commitment we made to Canadians.

I will conclude by saying that in the last number of weeks, we have seen all sorts of initiatives from a new Prime Minister and a new administration. We are making a difference. We will continue to work hard for Canadians.

Could the leader of the Green Party explain why, in a nutshell, she feels that this bill should not pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill cries out for amendments and improvements to ensure that the projects chosen to be in the national interest meet some kind of binding set of criteria. It needs to create a system. Why have a law in place, as opposed to a wonderful declaration that everyone signs? If it is a law, it should have accountability mechanisms. It should be reviewable by a federal court if the promises and commitments made by the government are not observed.

The bill has nothing mandatory. Even the much-vaunted major projects office is a discretionary move. It is claimed the bill would do all sorts of things: We will not proceed unless there is consensus and we will not proceed unless there is a private sector proponent. The Minister of Natural Resources said this in the main estimates, but nothing in the bill says that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the Liberal government, a minority, which to me does not indicate that this is such a massive decision by all of Canada, has successfully pushed through legislation that would violate the rights of indigenous peoples. It does so first of all by the process of getting Bill C-5 through in such a fast-tracked way, but it will continue to do so because of the way the legislation is crafted.

I wonder if the member can share with us the impact this bill would have on indigenous children. Will they be part of this great economy that the Liberal and Conservative coalition has led in Bill C-5?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member of Parliament for Nunavut, for her extraordinary courage, her championing of indigenous rights and her consistently calling out the importance of intergenerational love. There has been a lot of trauma visited on indigenous peoples, and I do not know anyone who has been clearer than the hon. member for Nunavut.

The offences done to indigenous rights in the bill are significant, and the offences to children, whether settler culture children or indigenous children, in undermining our democracy, will cause, I am afraid to say, serious damage. I have never seen a government expand powers to the centre and then, when the so-called emergency is over, relinquish them to go back to normal levels of respect for Westminster parliamentary democracy. The role of a prime minister is first among equals.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate. In rushing through Bill C-5, not only does it, of course, violate indigenous rights, as we have heard, but what are the implications for the environment of overriding environmental standards?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a strange thing to find myself more shocked now than I was by things that the Harper government tried. We saw bills pushed through before, but I have never seen an omnibus bill with such breadth and such impact on multiple laws that dictates future decision-making. Again, the use of a time machine would be handy. It violates the basic precepts of study, exploration, hearing from witnesses and making amendments based on hearing advice from those who are experts in the field.

As for the effect on the environment, it could be quite substantial because it is a matter of luck at this point. What projects get approved? Who knows? It is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory all over again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 5:07 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 16, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the first question is on part 1 and on the short title.

If a member participating in person wishes that part 1 and the short title 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.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call for a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The recorded division on part 1 and the short title stands deferred.

The next question is on part 2, including the schedule, which belongs to part 2.

If a member participating in person wishes that part 2, including the schedule, 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.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The recorded division on part 2, including the schedule, stands deferred.

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, June 16, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the third reading stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on part 1 and the short title, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #33

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare part 1 and the short title carried.

The next question is on part 2, including the schedule, which belongs to part 2.

(The House divided on part 2 and the schedule, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #34

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare part 2, including the schedule, carried.

The House has agreed to the entirety of Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, at the third reading stage.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 5:49 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, June 16, the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 15, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.)