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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There are 26 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-5.

Motions Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12 to 14, 17, 20, 25 and 26 will not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), regarding the selections of motions and amendments at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21 to 24 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21 to 24 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

That Bill C-5 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 9 with the following:

“tee of both Houses of Parliament, designated or established for the purposes of section 24, which shall

(a) include at least one member of the House of Commons from each party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in that House and at least the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, or his or her nominee, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, or his or her nominee, and the Leader or Facilitator who is referred to in any of paragraphs 62.4(1)(c) to (e) of the Parliament of Canada Act, or his or her nominee; and (b) have as its chair or joint chair, on the part of the House of Commons, a member of that House who is not a member of the government party.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 9 with the following:

“Act. Its chair or joint chair, on the part of the House of Commons, shall be a member of that House who is not a member of the government party.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 12 on page 11 with the following:

“b) que tout titulaire de charge publique principal, au sens de”

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, for the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

moved:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 12 with the following:

(c) detailed cost estimates that do not include private sector commercially sensitive financial information; and

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

moved, seconded by the member for Courtenay—Alberni:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 13 with the following:

“participation of the affected Indigenous peoples and the public and that”

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

moved:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 14 with the following: “dissolved.”;

(b) by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 19 with the following: “or dissolved.”;

(c) by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 20 with the following: “rogued or dissolved.”; and

(d) by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 20 with the following: “rogued or dissolved.”

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

moved:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by

(a) replacing lines 7 and 8 on page 15 with the following:

partments and agencies regarding the project;

(b) replacing lines 24 to 27 on page 15 with the following:

(4) The Minister must cause to be tabled a report containing the information set out in paragraphs (1)(a) to (e) in each House of Parliament and, at the request of 10 or more members of that House, must appear, to explain the Minister’s decisions in

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

moved:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 19 the following:

“(b.1) the Canada Labour Code;”

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

moved, seconded by the member for Courtenay—Alberni:

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 19 the following:

“(m.1) the Species at Risk Act;”

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

moved:

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 21 with the following:

“Canada, including its prosperity and economic security, assured in part by the pursuit of the objectives”

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 21 with the following:

“set out in section 4 relating to the development of natural resources, energy products and related infrastructure, shared jurisdiction, public”

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-5, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 21 with the following:

“safety, national and international security, the facilitation of export markets, the quality of”

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

moved:

That Bill C-5 be amended by deleting the Schedule.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to talk about a very important message that is rooted in the April 28 election.

Liberals throughout the country campaigned extensively, during a federal campaign, during which we heard some very common themes at the door. The predominant one was the issue of how, as a nation, we are going to be able to face the threat of potential tariffs, concerns about trade and President Donald Trump from the United States.

There was a great deal of concern about what was taking place. We can reflect on what was happening during the election, and we saw that, for Canadians, there was that contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives. On the one hand, we had a leader who was a former governor of the Bank of Canada. By the way, he had actually been appointed by Stephen Harper at the time. The Leader of the Liberal Party also had the background of being a former governor of the Bank of England. He is an economist, someone who truly understood how an economy works.

Contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party, who is a career politician. Personally, I do not have anything against career politicians. Some might say that I am one, too, but I do know that, during the election, that weighed heavily on the minds of Canadians.

We had the right leader at the right time going into a federal election, and he was able to address the concerns of Canadians.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as much as I am enjoying this harangue, what is the relevance to Bill C-5?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

As the member knows, there is a wide latitude for members during debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that members opposite would be somewhat more respectful when members are speaking.

At the end of the day, when the voters spoke on April 28, they sent a very strong message to all members of the House that the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, had a mandate to build one economy instead of the 13 that we currently have in the country, and that is what the legislation is all about.

If we look at the election platform on page 1, if we look at the throne speech and if we look at the announcements made by the Prime Minister, we will see that the primary focus is to build one strong, healthy economy. The strongest economy in the G7 is the goal; that is something that the Prime Minister and Liberal members of Parliament are four-square behind. The focus of the government has been to enhance and build on that theme, and that is why we have Bill C-5 before us today, because the people of Canada were concerned about the economy, jobs and the direction that we were going in.

There is a new Prime Minister and a new administration, with a focus on building our economy. When we think in terms of trade and in terms of opportunities, there is a special focus in regard to exploring ways in which we can trade with other countries around the world, expanding our opportunities.

We have a Prime Minister who, just over two weeks ago, met with all the first ministers, all the premiers of provinces and territories across the country, about the idea of building the one Canadian economy. There have been provinces that have taken initiatives to build upon that. We have to be able to demonstrate here on the floor of the House of Commons that we are listening to what Canadians want and to their expectations. Their expectations are that there would be a high sense of co-operation, political parties aside, focused on what is in the best interest of Canadians, and that is exactly what our new Prime Minister has done.

We met with first ministers of all political stripes. When meeting with indigenous leaders and with all the different stakeholders to date, the first priority has been Canadians and building our economy. That is what we are striving to do. Imagine April 28 to six or seven weeks later; look at what we have been able to accomplish in that very short period of time. We can talk about legislative measures, such as Bill C-5, which we are talking about today, which in essence captures the one Canadian economy by looking at special projects and encouraging labour mobility, in law.

We also have Bill C-2, which is to strengthen our borders. It is a tangible investment, not only from a legislative perspective but also from a budgetary perspective, where we would commit to 1,000 more CBSA officers and 1,000 more RCMP officers. This would have a real impact on making our borders that much more secure, dealing with issues such as extortion and illegal immigration of different forms. These are the types of things—

[An hon. member]

Fentanyl.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has pointed out, it deals with fentanyl too, a very serious issue here in Canada. In fact, around the world, fentanyl is a serious issue. As a government, we are looking at ways in which we can protect Canadians, and that is Bill C-2, not to mention Bill C-4.

Bill C-4 is the legislation that would put into law the tax cut for Canadians. Contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, it would be a substantial tax cut through which people would realize, in a fiscal year, over $800, for an average family with two workers in the home. They could get up to $840, I believe. It is a significant amount of money. There are 22 million taxpayers who would benefit by that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

One Canadian Economy Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in a 10-minute speech, there have already been two interruptions. I would encourage members to be a little more courteous.

I would suggest taking a look at the legislation. I referenced Bill C-4, and it would be a tax break for Canadians not only in terms of their tax policy but also in terms of first-time homebuyers. First-time homebuyers who are purchasing a new home would actually get a GST exemption on it, up to a significant amount of a tax break for those first-time homebuyers, thereby making homes more affordable and ultimately increasing the number of houses being built.

These are substantial legislation measures and substantial budgetary measures that we have seen in a very short window. We made an investment, for example, of two—

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that our election mandate is to build a strong, healthy economy, an economy that is the strongest in the G7. We have a new Prime Minister, a new administration. In a very short window, whether it is for legislation or budgetary measures, what we have witnessed, I believe, is a Prime Minister and a Liberal government that are committed to serving Canadians every day in order to build the dream that Canadians have. I for one am very grateful for the opportunity to be able to do that.

On a final note, I would like to thank a very special person who works in our MP lobby: Sarah is a wonderful research person and has been a great support over the years, and I thank her.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we can always tell the level of truthiness from the member's speech. The louder he gets, the less factual it is. So, we can certainly hear the level of truthiness, I guess, in today's speech.

The member talks about the one strong economy, and yet the government is a government that helped kill pipelines, energy east, which now leaves us bringing in $20 billion a year of oil from from Donald Trump's America instead of bringing it in from Alberta. The Liberals are keeping the unconstitutional Bill C-69, the “no new pipeline” ban; they are keeping the oil and gas cap, which is going to drive out many thousands of jobs; and the Quebec lieutenant says, “No more pipelines”. The resource minister cannot even say the word “pipeline” in the House. How is that building one strong Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, really and truly, the Conservative Party knows absolutely no shame. When Stephen Harper and the member's leader, Pierre Poilievre, sat around the cabinet table, do members know that they did not build one inch of pipeline to tidewaters? They talk a lot about it, but they were an absolute, total disaster in terms of building any pipeline. The Liberal Party has nothing to learn in terms of building a pipeline to tidewaters, because Pierre Poilievre was an absolute, total failure when it came to building a pipeline in the 10 years in which he sat on the government benches.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a question.

We have studied the bill in committee. Every time we debate a bill at second reading and point out gaps or problems, we are systematically told that these matters can be cleared up when the bill is sent to committee. We are assured that the bill can be improved at that stage.

However, in actual fact, when we examined this bill in committee, very few witnesses were heard. Worse still, the committee had very few hours to study the bill.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member opposite a specific question. How is it that his government, which claims to be so open and so unifying, rejected every single amendment put forward in committee?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was not just the Liberals. The Liberals worked with the Conservatives to bring in the closure and time allocation motions, which actually set the time frame in terms of how long the committee would meet. There were some restrictions.

The members should be a little more straightforward in telling the full truth in the sense that there were many amendments, some of them Bloc amendments, that actually passed at the committee stage as well. I assume that the Bloc members at committee did have some consultation before they proposed those amendments.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the member opposite's presentation, we heard him talk about Stephen Harper.

Stephen Harper was the prime minister more than a decade ago and had great success in developing Canada's economy. However, for the last 10 years, it was that member and his Liberal government, with Justin Trudeau, who introduced legislation that stymied the growth of Canada's economy and sent billions to dictatorships and to the United States. The member is here talking about a new government but also wants to talk about Justin Trudeau and his success.

Can the member stand up and say that he is proud of the work of Justin Trudeau and that he stands with Bill C-69 and the other job-killing bills that he passed with that government?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a reality check for the member. If we contrast the Trudeau administration to the Harper administration, we will find that the Trudeau administration created close to two million jobs in just under 10 years. Contrast that to one million jobs with Stephen Harper.

If we want to talk about the manufacturing industry, we can take a look at what happened in Ontario. Stephen Harper virtually destroyed the manufacturing industry in Ontario during that 10-year period of time. I would have no problem doing a comparison at any time on that issue.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 proves one thing for certain: The Liberals broke the system, and Canadians pay the price. An unprecedented $5 trillion of Canadian capital went south and into other countries, and they killed $670 billion in major natural resource projects that could have been built by Canadians with Canadian aluminum and steel for Canada's economic strength, self-reliance, security and unity. In five years alone, 16 major projects were sidelined because of them. It cost Canadians over $176 billion in lost nuclear, critical mineral mines, LNG terminals, pipelines, indigenous-led projects and energy corridors delayed or derailed by lawsuits, bureaucracy, delay and Liberal policies.

Imagine how powerful and self-reliant Canada would be today. Instead, Canada ranks last in the G7 for development, and the Liberals now scramble to patch what they themselves destroyed. Bill C-5 would not fix the fundamentals. It admits failure, with hundreds of thousands of Canadian job losses and more to come, unaffordable power and fuel, and skyrocketing costs of essentials. What the Liberals have to do is what the Conservatives said all along. They should scrap Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the federal industrial carbon tax, the Canadian oil and gas cap and all their other antidevelopment policies and laws.

Proponents today still face unclear rules, no concrete timelines, interference and limited transparency. As the transport minister said herself in committee, “we have come to a place in Canada where we have such a thicket of processes, rules and regulations...that we are unable to build with the alacrity that this moment in time requires.” It is not during just this current moment that major projects cannot get built in Canada with brisk and cheerful readiness. That has been the worsening reality of the last decade of Liberal antidevelopment laws, policies and messages. That dense, cumbersome thicket was created by the very same government that claims to be new while half the ministers are the old ones.

Conservatives offer real solutions: to cut red tape, gatekeepers and taxes; to create clear rules; to attract private investment; and to fast-track major projects for the benefit of all Canadians. The place the Liberals should start is with all the projects stuck in the federal queue right now, such as the Ksi Lisims LNG project, LNG Canada phase two and Bruce Power upgrades, and they should be looking at the dedicated west coast export pipeline to serve Asian energy demand that they killed 10 years ago and indigenous-backed roads to unlock the Ring of Fire. They are in the national interest, and they are waiting for a green light. They should be on the national interest list and fast-tracked yesterday.

Nevertheless, Conservatives worked in good faith with other opposition parties and with the Liberals to help improve Bill C-5, and here I want to thank the Conservative team for all its efforts. It will be up to the Liberals to deliver on their rhetoric and to keep up all their big, but vague, promises to Canadians. It will ultimately be up to Canadians to determine whether they do, and Conservatives will hold them accountable in the meantime.

Even now, Bill C-5 sets up a politically driven and determined process. Ministers will decide who goes ahead and who waits. They can even one day decide a project that they said was in the national interest earlier is no longer and remove it from the list or whatever ad hoc review a responsible minister determines. This is a problem I tried to fix: inherent uncertainty, huge powers behind closed doors and not a permanent fix or way to regulate and review projects in the sector most important to Canada's economy, imperative to help turn poverty into prosperity and to help lower emissions globally.

Bill C-5 blurs the lines, just as Bill C-69 did. What is worse is that the Liberals know it. At committee, the Canada-U.S. trade minister admitted, quote, whoever puts forward these projects, be they public, private, indigenous, provincial or municipal, does not have to go through an evaluation and approvals process that could take five to six years. He admits the Liberal system takes years and delays building. It is not clear whether projects that are actually in provincial or municipal jurisdiction may end up in the Bill C-5 queue for a federal review, which would be a similar overreach problem to that in Bill C-69. The mix of public and private infrastructure should cause taxpayers to take notice too, but again the obvious first step should be to fix that whole evaluations and approvals process the minister himself says is too long.

Proponents and the government itself are trapped by the red tape they imposed. Still, Bill C-5 does not fix it for everyone; it will fast-track a chosen few. At first, it did not even define “national interest”, which left every decision to the whims of cabinet and a lack of clarity for everyone involved, but Conservatives fought to require the government to define national interest with clear, specific criteria. We succeeded in adding that necessary clarity and structure to a process that started with none.

Conservatives also successfully incorporated the requirement of a public list of national interest projects, with timelines, estimated costs and rationale; application of the Conflict of Interest Act to officials and proponents to prevent abuse and prevent politically connected insiders from pursuing personal profit over the public interest behind closed doors; mandatory national security reviews for hostile regimes and state-owned investments into major national interest projects to combat foreign interference and economic imperialism from adversaries and to protect Canadian sovereignty and security; a requirement for the government to fully deliver on its mandatory duty to consult and a clear map for indigenous consultation, with public reporting to build trust, earn confidence and respect indigenous rights and title so that major projects can get to yes in a good way, with minimization of predictable court challenges and delays; and annual independent reviews of project progress so all Canadians can measure the Liberals by their actions, not just their words, and hold them accountable.

These amendments matter. They bring transparency, accountability, more certainty, more clarity and integrity to a bill that originally had none.

However, even with these improvements, major concerns remain. Bill C-5 would still allow ministers the power to remove a project from the national interest list at any time, without notice, reason or recourse. I proposed to remove the power to take projects off the list once they make the cut, because that uncertainty may continue to push investors and builders to other countries with clearer rules and more predictability, just as the Liberals have done to Canada for the past decade.

Since delay is death to major projects, Conservatives also aimed to give concrete timelines that do not actually exist in Bill C-5, despite all the Liberals' claims about a two-year process. I proposed a one-year deadline to issue permits once a project is designated; a 90-day limit for the Governor in Council, the cabinet, to make final decisions; and a requirement to prioritize private or public-private funding to protect taxpayers, to prioritize private funding. Canada should be a place where the private sector can take big risks and build big things on its time and on its dime, not where taxpayers have to be on the hook to get anything done.

The Liberals rejected those amendments.

Then I brought forward an amendment to apply the Conflict of Interest Act to enforce clearer safeguards to prevent corruption and block Liberals from stacking the deck in favour of their friends. This should not be necessary, of course, but we have a Prime Minister who hides his conflicts and where he pays his taxes, and who ran to make the company Brookfield invested in all the kinds of projects that Bill C-5 would fast-track, although under the Prime Minister, it mostly invested in the U.S. and abroad. This caused a flurry and a huddle among Liberal MPs, a couple of odd questions, and then the Liberals voted against it. Thanks to Conservative pressure and support from another opposition party, we forced the government to follow its own laws designed to prevent corruption and to put the public interest ahead of partisanship.

Conservatives also got limits put on cabinet to prevent it from exempting 15 foundational laws that no government should ever sidestep. All Canadians can be forgiven for wondering why the Liberals would have presented such a potentially significant law free from all of those laws in the first place. Conservatives pushed crucial amendments to ensure provincial consultation and to protect provincial jurisdiction and provincial decision-making power, because what the Liberals must show is that they can ensure big projects in federal jurisdiction can be built for Canada's economic strength, security and national unity, not meddle in others. They have to find a will, a spine, a set that they have failed to show in the past decade in order to enforce their own jurisdiction, to treat the national interest approvals according to the general advantage of Canada and to uphold legal and jurisdictional certainty so that proponents can build their projects when approvals face challenges and obstruction. Otherwise, this will all be big talk and a lot of delays without fixing the real problems, which are the antidevelopment laws and policies the Liberals themselves decided they needed this queue-jumping Bill C-5 to work around.

Conservatives' work continues today, with subamendments to clarify and fix flaws. We proposed a parliamentary committee with a nongovernment Chair. No government should judge its own actions. Democratic accountability anchors this principle, so the subamendment strengthens review with independent, balanced representation across parties. Canadians expect transparency, not spectacle. They expect real checks, not blanket approval.

Canada holds vast potential. Natural resources, energy and infrastructure sustain millions of jobs, fund public services, build communities and bolster global trade. Any bill for national development must reflect this reality and champion, not hinder, the sectors that drive prosperity. Canadians need an approach that does not curb ambition, repel investment or deny opportunity. Canada cannot tolerate a framework that casts resource development as a threat rather than a strength. Canada demands confidence, not caution, and momentum, not paralysis.

Conservatives champion responsible resource development, independent oversight and a united Canada, and our amendments to Bill C-5 uphold those values. Conservatives believe in strong paycheques and unity through opportunity, not division and double standards through federal overreach. We believe in reconciliaction through—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I emphasized during my comments, we have a new Prime Minister, who brought all the first ministers together, and they had very successful discussions. We had individuals like Doug Ford, a progressive Conservative in Ontario, working along with Wab Kinew, a New Democrat from Manitoba: different premiers, different political parties, working with a Liberal national government, building a team Canada approach to building a stronger and healthier country. I am grateful that the Conservatives saw the light to support Bill C-5. We appreciate that.

I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts in regard to having a team Canada approach to building these projects, which include the stakeholders and beyond: indigenous concerns, premiers' concerns and many others.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives will not stand in the way of the Liberals' sudden and often diametrically opposed to the tenures of their own words and actions efforts to get Canada working and building, as Conservatives have called on them to do the entire time. We are hopeful, but we do remain skeptical that Bill C-5 can fully solve the problem of the current broken federal regulatory mess that the Liberals made.

We believe in reconciliaction and know that indigenous people want to pursue equity, ownership and more powers of development and self-determination with their own rights and title. That is why the government should heed the words of the various chiefs who participated and of the AFN national chief, who cautioned that because of the lack of clarity around the duty to consult in Bill C-5, which Conservatives tried to fix, all approvals out of this may face court challenges, which will delay building. The Liberals need to fix that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Lakeland a question. First, we can all agree that supporting a closure motion is absolutely stupid and unreasonable. We can also agree that, in terms of the environment, the Conservatives are once again lagging behind.

I would, however, like to point out a way in which the member was able to play an important role at report stage. The Indian Act was removed from schedule 2, so the government can no longer override the act or remove fundamental rights. We can agree that we are not talking about free, prior and informed consent, and we would have liked Bill C‑5 to address that, which it does not. An important step was made in committee, however, and indigenous stakeholders themselves have recognized it. I want to thank my colleague and the Conservatives for their co-operation on this.

What does my colleague think of the fact that the Liberals did not vote for this amendment?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it betrays the lie the Liberals have been peddling for 10 years, which is that the most important relationship to them is with indigenous people. They have a track record of killing major research projects and pipelines that indigenous people worked years and years to negotiate in a good way with big companies to secure their own source revenue for self-sufficiency and self-reliance. There are big questions about how on earth the Liberals could try to bring in this law that exempted 16 different acts and six different policies, including the Indian Act.

I appreciate my colleague's comments and thank him for his collaboration. This is the major issue that the Liberals must get right; otherwise, they risk and threaten getting to yes in a good way, which every single Canadian and indigenous person in this country deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a little bit out of the scope of my colleague's file, but the Liberals really missed a key opportunity with this piece of legislation. Over seven million Canadians are without a primary care physician. We are in a mental health crisis within our country, and they could have very easily included provisions for a blue seal program within this bill.

I would like to hear our hon. colleague's comments.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is part of the concern we have with the government bringing forward a bill where it is trying to fix the mess that it made itself.

Maybe I will just take this opportunity to acknowledge my colleague for all of his passionate, dedicated, steadfast advocacy for health, mental health and wellness for men and all Canadians and congratulate him on the successful passage of the 988 line, which is a lifeline for vulnerable and at-risk Canadians. Congratulations to him. We are so proud to have him on our team.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is the last day we will sit before summer. Usually, on the last day, everyone has a smile on their face. They are in a good mood and they are patting themselves on the back. I would suggest that such is not really the case today. That is not the case because we are finishing our work with a gag order on Bill C-5, a gag order that, incidentally, does not have consensus. We barely had time to study the bill in committee or in the House. In fact, the gag order came in before we even started debate on Bill C‑5.

Normally, when a committee study is completed and there has been some co-operation between the parties, enough amendments have been made to the bill to make it decent, or at least palatable and something we can live with. Generally, the priority is to remove most of the irritants from the bill, and we are able to say that we have at least done that. This time, that is not the case. This time, we are not in a good mood about the bill or about the work done in committee, because we did not have an opportunity to do any real work.

It is particularly sad because closure is generally imposed when a bill has stagnated, when there has been no progress on a bill for months, when there is filibustering. This time, we did not even have time for it to stagnate. There was no time for a filibuster because we did not have time to talk about the bill in the first place. It is sad because not so long ago, we moved an amendment to the government's closure motion that would have granted us more hours of consideration in committee. Instead of having just two hours on Tuesday, we would have had 14 hours, which would have enabled a good number of witnesses to appear. We almost reached an agreement before going to committee. It seemed as if it was going to go ahead, but apparently there were last-minute negotiations behind the scenes, some shenanigans between the government and the Conservatives. As a result of those shenanigans, that did not come to pass, and people who had been called to testify were told by the clerk that they would not be testifying after all. Those are witnesses who had taken time off work, had planned to drive for hours or had already started driving, and could have even boarded a plane. Those witnesses were ultimately told they were not going to testify. What do you make of that, Mr. Speaker? I know you cannot answer, but it makes no sense. It was a lousy way to treat these people. They were treated without respect.

A lot of witnesses, including members of environmental groups, would have appreciated the opportunity to testify about Bill C‑5. However, no witnesses from environmental groups were able to give evidence on Bill C‑5 because the Bloc Québécois was allowed only two witnesses for the duration of the study. That is absolutely ridiculous. More than 60% of the witnesses, whose names we submitted and who were supposed to testify, were ultimately told they could not, even though the clerk had already called to ask them to testify. The whole thing is unbelievable. I consider this a terrible disservice to democracy. It brings shame on this Parliament to have sunk so low. What this government was actually trying to do was to muzzle them. It wanted to deny them a voice. It wanted to silence them and silence their criticism. That is how this government operates.

Worse still, by the time the witnesses appeared in committee, it was too late for us to move amendments. Regardless of what the witnesses had to say, we could not even listen to them or integrate their comments into the bill. That way of doing things makes no sense whatsoever. It is a disgrace, and I hope Quebec society will remember this. I actually hope Canadian society will remember it, too. I know first nations will remember, environmental groups will remember and francophone communities outside Quebec will remember. I know a lot of Quebeckers and unions will remember, too.

When a government seizes all power for itself, disregards the democratic process and refuses to listen to criticism, that is a serious and dangerous situation. It is bad enough that the Conservatives helped them do it, but it is worse still that the Liberals did not vote in favour of one single amendment proposed in committee. They could not have cared less. Like masters, like kings on earth, they had already made all the decisions. That is how this government operates.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, as reported with amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, I have been in the House for about nine years now, and I have to say, Bill C‑5 is the worst bill I have ever worked on. It is the worst bill I have ever seen make its way through the House. These are strong words, but it is the truth.

The government's approach reveals a thoroughly autocratic management style. Despite everything, we managed to get rid of a few irritants, a few items that were blatantly unacceptable, although many others remain. In fact, we had to twist the government's arm to get last-minute gains like having the Indian Act and the Official Languages Act removed from the list of acts that could be sidestepped under the major projects bill.

It should not be a herculean task to prevent the government from bypassing every law on the books to please the Liberal Party's pals. Some laws should be untouchable. Francophone rights should not even be up for discussion; nor should indigenous rights. We won those small victories because we got a little last-minute support on a few things from the Conservative Party.

We also managed to achieve a little more transparency around the use and application of this act thanks to an oversight committee similar to the one we have for emergency measures. We also made sure that the special powers given to ministers cannot be used when Parliament is dissolved or the House is adjourned. These are small victories, but they do not change the substance of the bill.

We also proposed other amendments that sought to improve environmental oversight, but they were rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition, as were our amendments aimed at giving Quebec the right to say no to projects that Ottawa wants to fast-track. We proposed amendments to force the bill and the government to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces and territories, but those amendments were also rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition.

We introduced an amendment to stop certain projects from being fast-tracked and to give the House the power to do that. This amendment would have allowed the House to draw attention to the fact that the government was going too far when it was not happy with these fast-tracked projects. Once again, our amendment was rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition. We wanted to completely eliminate the power to circumvent laws by order in council for major projects. That was also challenged and rejected by the Liberal-Conservative coalition.

As we know, normally, the larger the project, the greater its impact and the more social dialogue it requires. However, in this case, we are seeing the opposite: The larger the project, the more political games there will be. The larger the project, the more people will have to suffer the consequences of something that they were not even consulted about.

This opens the door to all sorts of biased applications, all sorts of arbitrary decisions and greater cronyism. One would think we are living in a banana republic. Usually, in modern democracies, it is the opposite. We have the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch, which are all independent from one another. However, what we are seeing here is the executive branch giving itself the power to bypass the legislative branch. That is unfortunate and it is really problematic to see the government being given the power to choose projects, the power to choose what projects should be designated as being in the national interest, the power to choose the conditions that will apply to projects, and the power to circumvent laws that this Parliament passed, all by order in council. The government is even being given the power to issue an order changing the project conditions midstream, if the developers do not like them.

The bill that is before us is really serious, and I do not understand why members of the House do not realize that. Normally, checks and balances exist in a society for good reason: to prevent the abuse of power. What we are seeing on the other side of the House is a government that wants to give itself all the power and govern like our neighbours south of the border. We are speaking out against that. I thought that this was something that we wanted to do away with in the last election, but this is what we are seeing the government do today.

We should not trust a government that not only wants to govern by order in council, but also wants to govern in secret, with no accountability.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, the degree to which the Bloc does not support Bill C-5. Every region of the country will benefit from it. The Bloc members seem to be concerned about the process, when we know it is not just the Liberals; we have Conservatives and Liberals who have recognized the theme of the national election that was held on April 28. It was universally accepted in terms of developing and promoting one Canadian economy, because it helps the people of Quebec. We can think in terms of hydro in the province of Quebec.

Why is the Bloc putting their separatist attitudes above the interests of the people of Quebec when, even in the most recent mandate, April 28, just weeks ago, we got that very strong message? The Bloc members are ignoring the people of Quebec. I say shame on them.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary's only argument against what I said is that I am a separatist, that means he is all out of arguments.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct that the bill does provide the government with discretion to approve projects. I guess where the Conservatives and the Bloc separate is the fact that the Bloc members voted for Bill C-69. They supported the industrial carbon tax. This is the very reason Bill C-5 is necessary.

Will the member vote with Conservatives to eliminate Bill C-69?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my Conservative colleague is asking that question, because we were able to mitigate the most extreme aspects of the bill, even though it remains every bit as problematic and troublesome.

It is not quite as bad as it was, but what really disappointed me is that some of the amendments we proposed would have had an environmental impact and would have provided greater protection for biodiversity. Unfortunately, every time we mentioned the environment or biodiversity, the Conservatives were not on our side.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the member from the Bloc was uncomfortable with the question, but it does not necessarily justify the answer he provided, because the people of Quebec, much like the people of Canada, see the merit of this particular piece of legislation. We have a vast majority of members of Parliament who see the value, who want to see Bill C-5 pass, yet if it were up to the Bloc, this legislation would never pass. They would like to postpone it indefinitely.

The question that the people of Quebec and Canada have for the Bloc members is, why does the Bloc disagree with building one stronger, healthier Canada, with the potential of billions of dollars that would be saved for everyone?

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

Mr. Speaker, given how long the parliamentary secretary has been here, he should have been rewarded with a ministerial position for his good service to the Liberal Party.

Essentially, he is saying that a majority of the population supports the bill. He even claims that a majority of Quebeckers support the bill, but I have not seen any figures to back that up, and I know very well that he does not have any. The government did not want to listen to the people, poll them or give them time to form an opinion because the Liberals imposed time allocation on the study of the bill, even in committee.

The only majority the member is talking about is the parliamentary majority, and that is not necessarily the majority of the population, because the Liberals are muzzling Parliament.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for our work together in trying to improve Bill C-5 as best we could. I am glad we won the fight to ensure there would be some limits on the cabinet in Bill C-5 to prevent it from exempting laws such as the Access to Information Act, the Lobbying Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Criminal Code, the Investment Canada Act, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Trade Unions Act, the Explosives Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Indian Act, the Governor General's Act and the Official Languages Act. That is an issue on which we worked co-operatively to help the Liberals improve the bill.

Maybe the member wants to comment on why in the heck they would ever try to sidestep all those laws in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very interesting. Indeed, we managed to get rid of a whole bunch of extreme powers that this government wanted to give itself.

Unfortunately, we had to do our work hastily on the back of a napkin in five minutes. We were adding acts in a rush, but we were unable to do a comprehensive review, which means that there are likely many other laws that are not in this bill that can still be circumvented.

This country has been around for more than 150 years. Many laws have been voted on, but, unfortunately, a list of 10 or 15 laws is not enough to ensure that this bill will have the necessary framework and limitations.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this debate on the one Canadian economy act.

We are here with this bill on these timelines because the government was given a mandate to unite, protect and build Canada. I do not think we expected to be in this place with this bill, but necessity is the mother of invention, and this crisis has created an opportunity for us to find and build the new solidarity we need to build Canada in the coming years. We did not expect to be in this place with this bill because, for centuries, generations of Canadians, immigrants to and from Canada, generations of Canadian leaders, had managed to balance our north-south relationship with the United States and the east-west relationship within Canada. The complex set of relationships between different indigenous peoples on this continent and between indigenous peoples and settlers continues to define both sets of relationships, but both of these east-west and north-south ties were fundamental to the growth of Canada.

The east-west relationship is the one that we generally learned in history class and that we continue to live and work on in the House. On this side of the House, with members from every province and two of three territories, it is one we take incredibly seriously. We know how that east-west relationship evolved. It was with the expansion of the country, first west and then north and then back east. There was the building of infrastructure, including railways, highways, waterways, and energy and electricity connections. There were the debates that arose from our different regional perspectives on those projects, including the building of businesses and family ties, as well as the many constitutional battles that brought some of us here, or scarred us, which were often focused on Quebec or the rest of Canada's relationship with it, but it is one on which we have all engaged. There are, again, the injustices that have been or are being done with respect to indigenous peoples, and they are part of the east-west relationship that we continue to live.

To build Canada from east to west took imagination, commitment and conviction, and this new government, this 45th Parliament, along with our constituents, are all beneficiaries of that hard work to build the country from east to west. The north-south ties are not always the daily concern of the House or of Canadian leaders, but it is a set of ties that so many of us live with every day, and we cannot understand the monumental east-west shifts without having the context of our north-south relationship, because the north-south ties predate the creation of the Dominion of Canada, too. There is the war of independence and the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists, the War of 1812, the threat of the Fenian raids and the American Civil War.

We have had to manage the north-south relationship since July 1, 1867, and occasionally we have taken great strides, whether it was with the Auto Pact, the acid rain treaty, the free trade agreements or our participation in the Afghanistan mission. While our predecessors in these seats debated these issues, Canadians continued to build north-south ties, including businesses, conferences, holidays, research partnerships, shopping and, most importantly, the family ties in immigration that define our two nations. These are among the Maritimes, Quebec and New England, the Canadian prairie provinces, and the U.S. Midwest and west. They are among Niagara and Buffalo, Windsor and Detroit, Waterloo and Silicon Valley, Tsawwassen, B.C. and Point Roberts, as well as Washington, and the Mohawk nation of Akwesasne. These are all north-south connections that define the Canadian-U.S. relationship.

The north-south relationship was captured so well by President John F. Kennedy in his address to this chamber 64 years ago when he said, and I think some of us have heard these words before, “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies.” Whenever we had a difficulty with the north-south relationship, we could generally make progress on it, not necessarily solving it, but continuing to work on it. All the time the north-south relationship developed, our economy, along with our web of connections, which each of us and our constituents had with our neighbours to the south, also grew.

From time to time, we would hear from people in Canada that not all was well with the north-south relationship for Canadian artists and creators, our softwood lumber industry, refugees and Canadian innovators. However, again, generally, this country has succeeded. Indeed, this country exists and has survived because we were able to manage both our east-west relationships and our north-south relationships and not let one be destroyed by the other. For decades and centuries, we have been able to keep these two sets of relationships balanced. As long as those basic collective benefits of the north-south relationship of economic and security were there, we had the luxury of focusing our conflict on the east-west relationship here, but that has changed, and now we have to change.

President Kennedy's description of our north-south relationship no longer holds, at least not all of it, anyway. Geography continues to make us neighbours, now both physically and digitally. History continues to make us friends, even if some of those individual friendships or family connections have been tested, but the new U.S. administration is breaking our economic partnership vocally and explicitly. It is threatening our sovereignty vocally and explicitly.

This means that we need to find new allies. We have a necessity to find new allies. Our government is doing this every day, and we are showing leadership on this through our G7 presidency, but we need to find and build new allies, new economies and new ties in the place we should have been looking to all along, which is at home. No matter how strong the family relationships are across the border, no matter how close the border is or how closely tied our economies continue to be, we have to look east-west for our economy, our security and our sovereignty.

That means the one Canadian economy act. As the House knows, the one Canadian economy act is in two sections. There are two new proposed pieces of legislation: the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.

The free trade and labour mobility in Canada act would build those east-west ties that we all neglected, and here are some examples: a farmer in Saskatchewan grows organic produce and wants to sell it in Alberta, but the certification rules just do not line up; a certified welder in Nova Scotia is offered a short-term job in a federally regulated project in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they have to reapply for recognition; or a tech firm in Ontario builds an energy-efficient appliance that meets the highest standards, but when they market it in B.C., they are told to go through another process.

The building Canada act is a strong bill, improved by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, with an engaged Parliament, which we are engaging with today, with protections both in the bill and in the Constitution, to make sure we do nation building more quickly and do it right, in the way the Minister of Indigenous Services said so well in the House earlier today. However, as much as the individual provisions of the bill are important, it is the imagination and the possibility that it has already unleashed that I am looking forward to.

Provincial premiers are working together and working with us to propose new projects to build. Business and labour leaders are standing up and standing together to build. They include leaders such as Finn Johnson of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, who said, “These nation-building projects are going to be essential to Canada's growth in the short and long-term—and UBC members will be there to build them”. There are also leaders such as Goldy Hyder of the Business Council of Canada, who said that Bill C-5 can enable us to leap out of the starting block allowing Canada to finish first in the global race for trade. There is also the Hon. Lisa Raitt, who used to sit in the chamber with us, from Coalition for a Better Future. She said that she believes Bill C-5 can play a role in strengthening Canada's long-term economic foundations. These are some of the leaders who are inspired by what the bill proposes and the mandate that we had in this election to be bold and ambitious and build the Canadian economy.

Canadians at large, including Canadians in my riding, are taking the broader perspective. They know how important the north-south relationship is, and they continue to guard and cherish those relationships and friendships, as well as the business ties and academic ties, but they know that what we took for granted in that relationship is at risk. They know that John F. Kennedy's formulation of the allyship, and the economic and security benefits we have from that relationship, are at risk. They are pleading with us to pass the bill to get going on these major nation-building projects from coast to coast, and for their elected leaders, business leaders and union leaders to put capital and their shoulders into this work. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, especially with respect to interprovincial trade, I think we all agree that we need more of it, particularly in the context of the deteriorating relationship with our neighbour to the south. We agree on that, but the vast majority of interprovincial trade barriers will still remain after the passage of the bill.

Do you think that things such as providing financial incentives to the provinces and a program such as the proposed blue seal program, which would allow nurses or doctors to work from coast to coast, would be positive?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. The hon. member for Northumberland—Clarke knows that questions have to be addressed through the Chair.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I worked in provincial government for many years and my interpretation of both the question and these programs is that the programs are best coming from the ground up with the professions, which are working hard to put down some of their more parochial concerns, and have provinces and governments that are behind them. Therefore, I believe this legislation would create that framework and that inspiration for more of this kind of work is to be done.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the week, I have been trying to understand how Bill C-5 is going to help aluminum processors and primary aluminum producers. I have not found the answer.

Perhaps my colleague can help us with that. Bill C‑5 was supposed to respond to the tariff war. How does Bill C‑5 support primary aluminum producers and aluminum processors?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concerns and challenges raised by my colleague. I believe this bill is essential and is a big part of our response to the tariff war, although it is not the only response.

What union leaders and employers are telling us is that this bill will encourage the use of aluminum and the work these individuals do. I think that is why the Liberal members from Quebec support this bill.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague about some of the elements of the bill, some of the progressive pieces there that he wanted to speak to in terms of the criteria around nation building and how he thought that might advance the opportunity to build a strong Canada.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the five criteria that are in the bill, and I commend them, but I am not going to read them back into the record right now, are really what nation building is all about. If we get these five criteria right, not only for the portfolio of projects that arise from the bill and that are directly nominated through the bill, but also those that are more generally the kind of economic resurgence that I hope we can see east to west, with that imaginative, creative investment, that would create a real and important framework. There is a real stress on indigenous benefit and participation. There is a real stress on meeting our climate objectives. There is a stress on achieving our economic targets from coast to coast.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about nation building. I ask a simple question: Does he believe pipelines would be nation building? The natural resources minister cannot even say the word in the House, and the Liberals' Quebec lieutenant says Canada does not need more pipelines.

Does my colleague believe a pipeline would be a nation-building project?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are lots of projects that are going to be potentially covered by this piece of legislation. What is important is what is an investable project. This bill would provide a framework for all kinds of investable projects, including perhaps the ones that the member mentioned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying the word “pipeline”. I do believe pipelines will be nation building.

I would actually like to start my speech by talking briefly about the contributions of some of the great Conservative members who have done a lot to improve this flawed Liberal legislation.

There is the member for Lakeland, who has been leading the debate, leading the charge on bringing transparency and accountability to this legislation, and strongly supporting and representing the people of Alberta.

The member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna has done tremendous work supporting free trade across our country. Years before it became invoked, he was pushing to free the beer and free the wine, and we all should salute his great work.

The member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North was tremendous at committee, pushing for amendments to increase accountability and transparency in this flawed Liberal bill.

Finally, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk did an absolutely tremendous job working hard at committee to restore order to this otherwise flawed legislation.

Let me now start with where we are right now. Bill C-5 contains two pieces of legislation: one is the free trade and labour mobility act of Canada; the other is the building Canada act.

The free trade act, or so it is called, would be anything but free trade. The Prime Minister promised during the campaign that there would be free trade in Canada by Canada Day. We now know, as we are closing the last day of our sitting in Parliament before summer break, that there will not be free trade in Canada by Canada Day.

This, in addition to the tax cut, the massive expenditure, the consultant expenditure, is yet another broken Liberal promise. What this bill would do is allow, in certain circumstances, the authorization of provincially regulated products and services to be recognized in the federal context. It would also allow occupations that are authorized by provincial legislation to be recognized by federal legislation.

The challenge is that this is an extremely limited scope. The actual number of interprovincial trade barriers that are federal in nature is tiny, perhaps less than 5% of the total number of trade barriers. In addition to that, there would actually be federal trade barriers that remain after the passage of this bill, so we would not even have eliminated all of the federal trade barriers.

Oftentimes, as members of the opposition, Conservatives are accused of just providing critiques without solutions. We have solutions too. As the government has seemed adept at stealing Conservative ideas, I am hoping its members are listening. We have the blue seal program, which would allow nurses and doctors to work from coast to coast without the need to get accredited again and again, which, after this legislation passes, sadly, will still need to be done in many cases.

The other thing is that many of these are in provincial jurisdictions, which we heard brought up over and over again by the other side. The reality is, though, the Prime Minister has tremendous power, the power of moral suasion and the power of vision, to bring provinces together.

If nothing else, the Prime Minister also has the power of the purse. He has the ability to provide financial incentives to provinces, like my own province of Ontario, where provincial leadership has torn down some of these barriers. Why not provide a financial incentive, additional federal funds, for those provinces that have the vision to reduce their interprovincial trade barriers? The best part about this is that it likely would not cost the treasury a dime. The reason is that tremendous amounts of economic flow can be generated by reducing these interprovincial trade barriers, allowing for greater tax revenue, which is likely an offset to the reduction of these trade barriers.

Instead, the government has chosen to miss the moment, which is a real shame and a challenge. I extend an olive branch here, as I would love to work with the government over the coming months or years, however long it stays in power, to work with the provinces to get substantive work done to remove those interprovincial trade barriers and capitalize on the much-stated $200 billion in economic flows we can benefit from with the actual reduction of interprovincial trade barriers.

The second part of this bill is the building Canada act. The building Canada act is the greatest admission of failure by a government in recent history. Let me say that again: It is the greatest admission of failure by any government in recent history.

What the government is basically saying is that over the last 10 years, the old Liberal government, which is the same as the new Liberal government, put so many barriers in the way that it was impossible to build national projects, projects of national significance, projects that bring our country together.

John A. Macdonald was able to build an entire railroad from coast to coast in the 1800s. We cannot seem to build a simple pipeline that goes across a provincial border. We cannot build roads. According to the former minister of environment, we do not even need new roads.

We have put in Bill C-69. We have put in the oil and gas cap. I should say that the Liberals have. They have also put in place the industrial carbon tax. They have so tainted the ground that it is impossible to get these projects built.

What is their solution? I have an easy one for them. Repeal Bill C-69. Get rid of the oil and gas cap. Get rid of the industrial carbon tax.

No, the Liberals' solution is to do an end-around on all of those regulations they have put in place. Why not just fix them fundamentally?

Conservatives are stuck here. We are sitting here saying, well, we want national projects to be built. We do not love the fact that they have this discretion, but we need pipelines built, we need roads built, we need railroads built, not just to grow the country economically but to unite us together. Quite frankly, the country is more divided than I can remember in my lifetime because of 10 years of Liberal government. We need to bring it together.

Conservatives were stuck, leading into committee, with a situation, a very flawed bill but a bill that would, perhaps, at least allow some projects to go forward. What did Conservatives do? We got to work. We rolled up our sleeves. We went to work. We did not simply say no and allow projects to just die on the drawing floor. We decided to work with the Bloc Québécois, quite frankly, to put in place the amendments we needed to ensure accountability and transparency.

The member for Lakeland, particularly, did a great job of drafting and leading the charge on accountability and transparency amendments that would make sure the government could not do what it does best. Liberals are going to Liberal, quite frankly, which is to engage in corruption and cronyism.

What are some of the things Conservatives have done? We have worked with the Bloc Québécois to set up a parliamentary committee that will have to be reviewed on a regular basis. We are going to get transparency and accountability on those projects. Who is building this project? Why is it being built? How much public money is going to it? This is so we know what is going on and when.

The most nefarious parts of the legislation, in total, were clauses 21 to 23. The operation of these three clauses was absolutely mind-blowing. They call these Henry VIII clauses, actually. That is a fitting name, because the operation of these three clauses would have allowed the government to exempt any national project from any legislation passed since 1867. That includes the conflict of interest laws, the lobbying laws, the laws on income tax and the laws on the Criminal Code.

Conservatives said we were not going to let that happen. We want national projects to be built, but not at the cost of Canadian taxpayers' dollars going to Liberal insiders. We have seen 10 years of that. We do not need any more.

What we did was put in place amendments or safeguards around that to prevent Liberal cronyism, because we had the crazy idea that the government should not be able to exempt itself from the Criminal Code, the conflict of interest law, the Lobbying Act and the Investment Canada Act.

By the way, the Investment Canada Act is a particularly important one, I might add. The Investment Canada Act controls the impact of foreign investment within Canada. The disclosure rules in there are absolutely critical to protecting our economy, especially in a difficult geopolitical situation.

Here is the reality. We had to get somewhere, and the Liberals brought us a car; that car came in missing a tire and half an engine, polluting all over the place. It was terrible. Conservatives spent the last two weeks working our tails off to make this bill palatable, to prevent Liberal corruption, to prevent Liberal cronyism and to, hopefully, get some projects built here.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, I would like to congratulate LiUNA Local 837 on its 75th anniversary. LiUNA is a trade union. Its members are literally building Hamilton, building this country, promoting and supporting workers in the skilled trades.

As a professional engineer licensed in Ontario, I completely agree with the member that we need increased labour mobility and professional mobility across provinces.

What would the hon. member say to workers in the skilled trades who would directly benefit from having one Canadian economy and who would directly benefit from major infrastructure projects included in Bill C-5?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have many great union workers and unions within Northumberland—Clarke, and I salute them, as the other member talked about.

What we really need, and what unions are, quite frankly, clamouring for, is the reduction, as the Minister of Transport said, or elimination of a thicket of regulations that is slowing economic growth and projects. If we want to get more quality union jobs, we need to make sure that not just some projects but all projects are allowed to go forward, in order to build pipelines, build roads and get more great union jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, during the study of this bill, we spoke out about the fact that the government does not need to comply with any criteria or constraints in designating a project as being in the national interest. Yes, the bill does include certain criteria and factors, but the problem is that these criteria and factors are completely optional. It is entirely up to the minister to decide whether to follow them or not. That means, for example, that the minister could designate the pool they want to have built in their backyard as being of national interest. It is that crazy.

Does my colleague think that is acceptable? I do not understand why the Conservatives decided to draft their amendment in a way that allows the government to simply issue an order in council to create its own definition. Does my colleague think that that is sufficient and that we can trust the government to that degree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for working so well together with Conservatives at committee to put in safeguards on accountability and transparency.

Projects like building a pool in one's backyard will not happen, but I would like nothing more than to work with the Bloc or any other members to fundamentally change, instead of having an end-around on the morass of regulation and burdensome taxes, to actually put in place the foundation, the environment. That way, all projects can get built as opposed to having an end-around. Unfortunately, we have not had the support of the Bloc or any other of the radical left parties in the House to eliminate things like Bill C-69, the oil and gas cap and the industrial carbon tax.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly tough question for my hon. colleague.

After a decade of the Liberal government, and should Bill C-5 pass, does the member actually believe that a national energy corridor will get built so that we can replace the $2 billion a year of Saudi oil that is coming into eastern Canada with Canadian oil?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, but honestly, I do not know whether it will or not. However, I can tell the member one thing: If the Liberals do that, we will be there to help them and support them to get that national energy quota up. If they do not, we will be here to hold them accountable.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I completely agree that there is a huge problem with the bill, specifically because of its nature and being the one bill that would fast-track the violation of indigenous peoples' rights. I wonder if the member agrees. Will he vote against the bill so we can make sure indigenous people's rights are being protected?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very important question. What I would say to the hon. member is that Conservatives worked with other opposition members to put additional protection in for indigenous rights. A number of amendments were made, including eliminating the Indian Act from schedule 2. Schedule 2 would allow the government to exempt projects from legislation. We did not think that was right, and we will continue to push for indigenous rights in everything we do.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me start off by staying that history is repeating itself. Once again, we have before us a legislative measure in the grand tradition of predatory federalism, which has no use for Quebec and the provinces and considers the Quebec nation and the provinces to be mere branch-plant economies.

What is the purpose and intent of this bill? During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told us that he was going to propose robust legislation to resolve the tariff crisis. The idea behind this measure is to build Canada. I am not surprised that he used the idea of building Canada, because the former leader of the official opposition spent three years telling us that Canada was broken.

What does surprise me is that my Conservative colleagues decided to support the government and its gag order. That is pretty ironic considering that, during the election campaign, I heard Pierre Poilievre say that, if a Liberal government were elected, inflation would be so high that people would be forced to hunt for food. I am teasing, but I will stop there because I do not want to be too hard on Mr. Poilievre, who is probably watching at home.

The government's intention is to provide a legislative response to the tariff crisis. Bill C‑5 does anything but respond to the tariff crisis.

First of all, I would like to consider the definition of a project of national interest. My colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who did excellent work on Bill C‑5, tried to introduce an amendment that would have allowed us to define what constitutes a project of national interest. In my opinion, that amendment was not accepted because the government quickly forgets that there is more than one nation in Canada. There are the indigenous nations and the Quebec nation. Since the government is quick to forget, I wonder in which nation's interest these projects will be carried out. They will certainly not be projects that are in Quebec's interests, since the amendments that would have required the government to get Quebec's approval were rejected, as were the amendments that would have required approval by indigenous nations.

Clearly, the bill in its current form is aimed at defending the interests of the Canadian nation. I am not trying to be flippant, but these interests often coincide with the interests of the oil and gas industry. We will come back to that later.

I was talking about the government's objective and the situation we are in, which leads me to a very basic question: In what way does this bill support Quebec's economy? In what way does it address the crisis that Quebec is facing right now, namely, the tariffs that are being imposed mainly on the aluminum industry? Frankly, it does not address that at all.

In my opinion, we have to differentiate the bill's objective from the situation we are in. The situation is the tariff crisis. The government's answer gives it a way of reducing the regulatory obstacles it is facing, especially for oil and gas projects. Even if the Liberals do not want to say so, this bill will, above all, facilitate new oil and gas projects.

Let me give you an example that occurred this week and that I found just appalling. I asked the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons if he did not find it outrageous that the government had paid $34 billion for the Trans Mountain expansion, knowing that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had stated that that oil and gas infrastructure would have to be used to maximum capacity for 40 years for it to be cost effective. I asked the government leader if he did not find that outrageous. His answer was that we will build Canada the way Robert Bourassa built Quebec with Hydro-Québec. What incredible irony.

Do members know how much money the federal government put into Hydro Québec? It did not contribute one red cent. Quebeckers paid for the biggest energy infrastructure in Quebec. They never got any support from the federal government. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has the nerve to use that as an example. To him, building Canada is doing what Robert Bourassa did. There is a disconnect. I think that my colleague should take a history lesson to better understand Quebec's economy.

I have been saying from the outset that the government's goal was to respond to the tariff crisis. How does this bill respond to the tariffs affecting Quebec? The answer is that it does not respond to those tariffs in any way. Let me prove it. Quebec is affected by the 50% tariffs on aluminum. When we talk about aluminum, we have to make the distinction between producers of primary aluminum and aluminum processors.

The United States currently consumes four million tonnes of aluminum per year. Of those four million tonnes, 3.3 million tonnes come from Canada, mostly from my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, and also from the north shore. The government says it wants to carry out major projects, in other words, infrastructure that would require the use of more aluminum. I cannot imagine what magic trick the government thinks it can pull off to replace a market of 3.3 million tonnes of aluminum per year. We will never consume that much in Canada.

This week, the government decided to propose some measures that I described as impotent, saying that they would impose certain quotas. That might work for steel, but it does not apply at all to aluminum. This bill will therefore have no impact on the tariff crisis affecting the aluminum sector.

It gets even worse. In 2019, during the CUSMA negotiations, a Canadian negotiator candidly told us that the government had dropped the ball. The only industry that would not be protected under the 2019 CUSMA was the aluminum industry. Steel had some form of protection. The Bloc Québécois speaks from experience because this was the first fight that we waged in the House when we came back in 2019. We wanted to make sure that the aluminum industry would be protected. This is an ongoing issue that proves that the government never pays attention to Quebec's industries.

The same is true for the forestry sector, which has been paying countervailing duties since 2017. Ten billion dollars in countervailing duties is currently being held captive in the United States, including $2 billion from Quebec. The federal government has always refused to implement a liquidity program that would have helped people in the forestry sector. It has always refused to implement that measure, so much so that today we are seeing many small sawmills in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, on the north shore and in the Gaspé Peninsula shutting down, which jeopardizes the economic vitality of the regions of Quebec. Instead of implementing measures that would have supported the Quebec economy, what the government is proposing is Bill C‑5, a measure that will help it build pipelines.

I will wrap up by saying that the history tends to repeat itself. I remember another crisis we went through in 2008. We all remember the 2008 crisis. The government responded quickly by announcing an $8-billion investment in the auto sector. We realized only later that it was far from a loan; it was a gift that had been given to the auto sector. The government never wanted to put a penny into the forestry industry in 2008.

Now history is repeating itself. A bill is being proposed that does not meet the expectations of Quebeckers. Once again, this is predatory federalism. No measures are being proposed to support the economic pillars of Quebec, and the government is trying to ram this down our throats by imposing closure. To me, that is far from a triumph.

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

Mr. Speaker, we were always extremely clear and transparent throughout the election. We made two strong commitments: unify the Canadian economy, including by eliminating barriers to internal trade, and build major projects of national interest. Over 8.5 million Canadians voted for our plan, which enabled us to win 44 seats in Quebec. As a result, we now have exceptional new colleagues in the House.

I want to ask my colleague the following question. Will he respect the will of voters, particularly those in Quebec, who asked us to strengthen and unify the Canadian economy, and will he vote in favour of Bill C‑5?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my Liberal colleagues from Quebec to listen to voters. The government cheated us out of $800 million by giving all Canadians a carbon tax rebate even though that tax had not been collected. I am not convinced that the people who voted for the Liberal Party are happy today.

With Bill C‑5, the government is proposing to build infrastructure that will not have any impact whatsoever on Quebec. On the two major industries in Quebec hit by tariffs, the government has remained silent.

If I were in my colleague's shoes, I would do some soul searching and I would realize that someone has dropped the ball somewhere.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, we have various concerns about the form and the substance. I will get back to that in a speech in a few minutes.

In my colleague's opinion, what happens when bills are put forward that have so many implications and consequences for the future and the time isn't taken to listen to citizens, municipalities, the provinces, scientists, environmentalists and first nations?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always agree with my colleague from the NDP.

Yes, it is true, there was a major gas infrastructure project in Quebec and in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. It was GNL Québec. The developers said again and again that if the environmental assessments were not favourable to the project, they would step back. What did they do when they got the results of those assessments? They sued the Quebec government for millions of dollars.

Now the government wants to fast-track projects whose details are unknown. Just think of the developers who we will turn down and the money that will have to be spent. This bill is a disaster in the making.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what my esteemed colleague thinks is the cause of all the broken promises we have seen from the new Liberal government.

Does he think it might have something to do with the ministerial musical chairs we have seen going on in the Liberal cabinet? Who on earth promotes failed team leaders in the real world and expects better results?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite referred to Canada's “new” government. That has been raised as a point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, personally, I do not really understand why my Conservative colleagues are grumbling about Bill C-5.

Earlier, during oral question period, my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said that he thinks it is a Pierre Poilievre bill wearing a red tie. I honestly think that the Conservatives' and Liberals' shared interest in this bill is founded on the sacred bond between those who are pro-oil. The Conservatives should be happy.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a female MP, I would like to take up the point that my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche made. Not all colleagues elected to the House are exceptional. I think there is a petition going around against one of his colleagues that was launched by a group of women. My colleague is a scholar, he is educated and he knows what “exceptional” means. When he said that, it had an impact on me as a woman. Perhaps he might reconsider his comment.

I would like my colleague to tell me why the Liberals were against the amendments that call for the provinces and Quebec to be consulted.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is another example of predatory federalism. The government's objective is to have one economy and just one type of assessment, and be able to shove fossil fuel energy projects down Quebec's throat when they do not meet our expectations. It is going to put billions of dollars into that. What the government is doing is ensuring that it has the regulatory environment to complete this project that only responds to the oil and gas industry's needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-5, which is a monster of a bill. Unfortunately, I am also a little disappointed in our parliamentary institutions, because our rights as parliamentarians are being trampled on. We have not had much opportunity to discuss this bill, even though it has very wide-ranging implications and far-reaching consequences that will persist for years to come, perhaps even for decades to come.

I want to talk about both the form and the substance of the bill. However, before addressing the substance, I would like to point out that this week, we are witnessing a kind of parliamentary power grab by the Liberal government, which is quite damaging and sad. There are even people, notably those at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, who say that this is a way of circumventing democracy. It is a way of bypassing parliamentarians and bypassing the normal process of studying a bill, which would have allowed us to improve it and determine all its consequences and implications.

For fast-tracked approvals involving huge national infrastructure projects whose content, scope and nature is not entirely clear, we should be sitting down with communities across the country and listening to what they have to say. We should be hearing from experts, scientists and first nations, who have constitutionally recognized rights. We should also be hearing from municipalities, the provinces and Canadians, who have concerns of their own. The government, however, is ramming this bill down our throats in just a few days. One committee meeting was held to discuss and adopt amendments. I have never seen the likes of it. It is Stephen Harper all over again but on steroids. I do not know what has gotten into the Liberals. There was absolutely no national emergency to justify passing this bill so quickly. It opens the door to mistakes that could have serious and very long-term consequences.

This bill has two parts. It so clearly has two parts that I want to congratulate my NDP colleague from Vancouver East on successfully splitting the bill so we can have two votes. Indeed, the two parts cover two completely different subjects. My colleague did some excellent work here, and I want to congratulate her again. The conversation about reducing non-tariff barriers is something we generally agree on, if it can help interprovincial trade and make life easier for our entrepreneurs. Labour mobility is obviously something we have been calling for, as have unions and workers. As we see it, the fact that we can support that part is a good thing.

However, we will still be extremely cautious when the time comes to adopt regulations and see how this is going to be implemented. Reducing non-tariff barriers between the provinces must not trigger a race to the bottom, to lowest-common-denominator standards and regulations that could make certain occupational health and safety situations more dangerous or pose a danger to the public. We agree in principle, but we will have to see how they intend to implement this.

As for the second part of the bill, which is causing a lot of talk in society, we have many concerns about it too. Many people are writing to our offices, and many groups want to contact us. They say we need to proceed with caution, because it is dangerous. The government is putting things in the bill that have never been done before. The consequences could be serious and irreversible. I think the word “irreversible” is especially important. We are stepping onto a slippery slope, and there will be no way to climb back up.

There are a number of problems. Equiterre, a well-known environmental organization in Quebec, wrote us to raise quite a few points that deserved to be debated here. Equiterre says that the bill is vague about definitions, the nature of projects and their impact on communities, and that it is problematic with respect to circumventing environmental statutes and regulations, weakening accountability mechanisms and public participation, potentially infringing on provincial powers, and concentrating powers in the hands of the executive branch, particularly one minister.

That is extremely worrisome and all of those points are problematic for us. The bill contains some extremely vague definitions and I will quote the bill directly so that everyone understands: "The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence".

It seems that, ultimately, what is important to the Liberals is investor confidence. We all agree on the part before that. We in the NDP agree that there should be infrastructure projects. We agree that projects should be carried out and that there should be development. We agree on creating good jobs, especially good unionized jobs. The member for Winnipeg-Centre was able to get an amendment passed to indicate the importance of unionized jobs. That is crucial to us in the NDP.

Many infrastructure projects, especially those relating to transportation, could be very beneficial to various communities. High-speed rail in Canada would be a very good thing. In our opinion, building truly affordable housing, social housing and co-operative housing while we are in the midst of a housing crisis is a project of national interest. There are also the intercity transportation projects in the regions. All those projects would create jobs and help all of our communities.

However, the proposals in this bill are a bit vague and hazy. It is a bit of a catch-all. It gives one minister and one office the authority to unilaterally decide whether projects should be put on the list of projects of national interest.

What are these criteria? The first is to “strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security”. That is fine. The second is to “provide economic or other benefits to Canada”. Putting the term “or other” in a bill means the sky is the limit. The third criterion is to “have a high likelihood of successful execution”. The bill ensures that, once a project makes the list, it is guaranteed to move forward.

The fourth criterion is to “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”. That is interesting. What does advancing the interests of indigenous peoples mean if their rights are not respected? What does advancing their interests mean if we fail to uphold treaties, abide by the Constitution or respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? That is not what was written down, so we have to be extremely cautious. The fifth criterion is to “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change”.

I do not see how far-fetched notions like decarbonized oil can be considered clean growth. There is no such thing. Increasing oil and gas production, particularly in the oil sands, is completely incompatible with the Paris Agreement, with meeting our 2030 targets and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. On the contrary, all of the reports from the environment commissioners tell us that we are on the wrong track and will not meet our targets. They are telling us that the Liberals have been dragging their feet for 10 years and have embarked on all sorts of contradictory policies, and as a result, no one takes them seriously.

What must be understood is that we have been told time and again that the minister's power is excessive and discretionary. He relies on the criteria I just read. Once a project is on the list, it is not a matter of if the project will be carried out, but when and how. All of society's checks and balances are muzzled—a reality we are familiar with—and can no longer do anything. By then it is too late, and the game is over. We are stuck with the project, regardless of the consequences, regardless of whether the consultations were done properly or not, regardless of whether the issue was properly studied or not, regardless of whether the groups were heard or not, and regardless of whether the rights of first nations are respected or not. The Liberal Party is giving the government and the minister who will be responsible the power to do this.

In fact, what we are witnessing today are Stephen Harper's and Pierre Poilievre's wildest dreams coming true. What we are seeing today is the Prime Minister of Canada taking his mask off, lifting it over his head, and declaring that he had been a Conservative all along and had simply not told us. That is why we are seeing this Conservative-Liberal alliance in the House right now, not only to pass this dangerous bill but also to do so by imposing closure and trampling on the rights of the members here. We are here to represent the people who elected us. We have serious work to do. What we in the NDP are saying is that the government should have taken the time to do things right. This shoddy work is not going to create jobs; it is going to create lawsuits. It will create litigation. It will end up in the courts, and the only ones who will benefit from the situation are the lawyers who will be raking in their fees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have expressed to members of the Bloc that, on April 28, Canadians sent a very strong message, not only to the leader of the Liberal Party but also to all members of the House, and the Prime Minister of Canada has made it very clear that this is in fact a reflection of a very clear mandate that was given to the House.

We appreciate the support coming from the Conservatives, but the Bloc and the New Democrats are completely offside, coming up with issues to filibuster or to not allow the bill to even pass. Fortunately, because of working with the Conservatives, we now will be able to get the bill passed.

Why is the member not respecting the mandate that was actually given to every member of the House to build one strong Canadian economy—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the mandate that the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie gave me, which is to defend their interests, good jobs, the environment and the rights of indigenous peoples. That is what I am doing here today.

The second thing I would like to say is that this bill does something absolutely unprecedented and extraordinary. It allows projects of national interest to not comply with existing federal laws, especially environmental protection laws.

Équiterre is clear on this:

Schedule 2...identifies which laws the government may choose to ignore, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations and the Marine Mammal Regulations.

Schedule 2 to Bill C‑5 makes it possible to circumvent federal environmental protection laws.

What is going on here?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am glad that my colleague touched on indigenous peoples in his speech as well. I think that by the brilliance of our colleague, the member for Vancouver East, the parties will now be able to vote separately on part 1 and part 2.

I wonder whether the member can share with us what this opens up as an opportunity for the Conservatives who, during the debates, have been touting the protection of indigenous peoples' rights all along. This is their opportunity to act on what they have been debating on, while ensuring that indigenous peoples' rights are protected by voting “no” to part 2 of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. Advocating for the people of Nunavut, the Inuit, is always her top priority, as is defending the rights of indigenous peoples.

During the short amount of time we had for discussions, the Conservatives touted the importance of reconciliation, working with the indigenous peoples and respecting treaties and their rights. Indeed, we can now all vote together on part 1, which will reduce trade barriers between the provinces and stimulate the economy and labour mobility.

If the Conservatives want to prove that they are consistent and willing to put their money where their mouths are, they now have the opportunity to keep part 1 and move forward. Then they can vote against part 2 and come back here for a real discussion, a real study and a real debate with parliamentarians, as well as with first nations, experts and environmental groups.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me get this right. The New Democrats, the seven independent members, have decided that they are going to vote in favour of part 1, but they are in opposition to projects deemed to be in the national best interest, even though there are all sorts of safeguards in play to protect things such as indigenous consultations and rights, and so forth.

Let us be very clear that the New Democrats are becoming more and more irrelevant, for the simple fact that they are not putting Canadians first—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. There is a little noise coming from all sides of the House.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants to develop projects of national interest that serve communities, respect first nations and guarantee a healthy environment for everyone, everywhere. There are ways to achieve that, but this bill offers us no guarantees. It gives one minister all the power to choose the projects.

Once this bill is passed, we could end up with projects that cross through communities and provinces, that increase our greenhouse gas emissions and that pose a danger to the environment.

That is what the NDP fears.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep sadness. As I see it, this debate on Bill C‑5 is a huge tragedy.

While the Liberals say they achieved the mandate in an election, we worked together, the leaders of the opposition parties, previously, with Justin Trudeau. We said we were team Canada, that we would to work together, push back on what Trump wants to do and defend Canada's economic sovereignty. However, grabbing that and claiming that Bill C-5 is a response to how Canadians and all of us in the opposition parties feel about protecting our economy from Trump and pretending that this unprecedented power grab was ever discussed in the election is a sham. We can add an “e” to that: It is a shame.

What we have done here is create the impression, and certainly the Liberals are saying it over and over again, that passing Bill C-5 would be a response to Trump and that it would protect our economy, by railroading the act through, passing it, and then saying that cabinet alone can decide whether a project is in the national interest, and then its approval process would take two years. We do not know what projects are under consideration, but large projects generally take a long time to build or put in place, eight to 10 years, and five years minimum.

There is massive pressure that it needs to be done now, when there is so much more we could do to protect our economy. We could create strategic reserves of Canadian natural resources. We could ensure that Canadian industries and Canadian workers are protected.

However, what the Liberals have done has, honestly, shocked me, because I did not expect this. I really thought we would have a government that understood the need to proclaim Canadian sovereignty and protect our economy but not trample on democracy to do it. I noted that the media said that the bill “sailed through committee”. That is an interesting turn of phrase from our national public broadcaster. I support the CBC, but this kind of thing makes me think of Pierre Poilievre's points. Never mind; I support the CBC. However, the bill did not sail through committee; the bill was forced through committee.

It went through what we call a guillotine process.

We have had a guillotine process at every stage: abbreviated debate at second reading and definitely massively abbreviated opportunity to hear witnesses, so many experts in environmental law and experts in indigenous rights and title holders. All of the aspects of the legislation that are controversial have never been properly aired or discussed.

The process used to pass Bill C‑5 is problematic. It is being rushed to an unprecedented degree, unlike any other time that a bill was forced through Parliament since I first had the great honour of serving as member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I have never seen anything like it.

It is a twofold concern I have at report stage. Yes, we have made some amendments in committee, but they do not touch on the major concerns that people have about the legislation. I do appreciate the Speaker's ruling that part 1 and part 2 will be separated, but how can we have a vote on a bill that would give unprecedented powers to a prime minister and cabinet to choose projects that would be accelerated and expedited to such an extent that they could ignore other pieces of legislation?

There are experts, and I will hold up Jody Wilson-Raybould, our former minister of justice, as an example. She is not just someone who has a sharp legal mind and to whose advice we should be listening; she is also someone who spent her life following in her father's footsteps in protecting indigenous rights and understanding them.

While the preamble to the bill says that free, prior and informed consent is important, the way the law would operate would not allow for that. That is where I am deeply concerned that we are running roughshod over things that we care about in this country, things that we have passed in our Parliament, such as support for the respect for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which, in the bill before us, are now found inconvenient because we want to build things fast.

What things? We will find out later. How fast? Who knows? What laws will we push out of the way? What indigenous rights concerns do we think will take second place?

What happens if they take last place?

What can we do with a bill like this and with a process like the one we are seeing today in the House of Commons?

This is a moment. We have some good amendments before us at report stage to reduce the extent of unaccountability in cabinet's deciding what projects are going to be considered in this expedited process. We have an opportunity. I ask the members of the governing party to consider that this is not an electoral college. We are Parliament. We are a Westminster parliamentary democracy where each member of Parliament is to vote for how they believe their constituents would want to see them vote.

If this was a question, as the government seems to want us to believe, of voting up or down on Canada's economy, there is no question that, of course, Canadian parliamentarians would want our economy to do well. Will this law take us there? There are so many other options, but we have not had any chance to discuss them, nor have we had a chance to adequately review this bill.

I completely agree with what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said in his speech, because this is irreversible.

Once we take the step, we cannot go back without going back to Parliament and changing the law.

These are unprecedented powers. With the decision that they will remain in effect for five years, we have a problem.

We have a real problem of this bill creating not an opportunity to build our economy, but a potential for the expansion of powers of the Prime Minister and cabinet that we have never seen in this country before, with the least amount of debate I have ever seen on a bill.

As everyone now understands, it is an omnibus bill that will have enormous consequences. The decisions may reduce the opportunities for projects that are important to our nation.

If we end up, as often haste makes waste, pulled back into court, we will definitely see challenges. I particularly note the maiden speech of the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a Conservative who said that when projects are built in his territory, the environmental assessments help build better projects, with the time it takes to study, the time it takes to reflect and the engagement of people. Indigenous peoples, Canadians, communities, territories, provinces and local governments need to be engaged to have successful projects.

The factors that are listed are not requirements, and no matter what has been said over and over again in this place about passing this bill to protect our economy, I urge the thoughtful members of the Liberal Party in this place to think twice and vote for the amendments at report stage that improve this act and reduce the chances that it will be abused, not just in the future, but in the very near future.

A section like subclause 6(1) says that in the future, we will just deem that all these decisions have been made in favour of advancing a project. We will not worry about it, because we will decide ahead of time. It will be verdict first, evidence later. This is not the way that Canadian Parliament behaves, reflects or engages in democracy in this country.

I deeply hope that we will see support from government members for the amendments that have been put forward at report stage from the Bloc and the Greens. We hope to see improvements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the leader of the Green Party has been very consistent over the years. The concern I have, which was really emphasized in the last federal election, is that we need to be able to build a strong, healthy economy, and that means looking at national projects. If it was up to the leader of the Green Party, the studies that would be done would ultimately be endless. We would not even be able to pass legislation.

Does the member see any sense of passing legislation of this nature given the concerns that she raises?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary, with whom I enjoy a good relationship.

This legislation is an abomination, and one that will be a stain on the the reputation of the government and our Prime Minister. As a first effort to lead this country, it is a bad effort, and I am very sad to say that this legislation could have been improved if it had been studied at all, if the voices that had been silenced had been heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my Green Party colleague for her diligent work on this bill. Although she does not sit on the committee, I had the opportunity to read all the amendments she put forward, sometimes even late into the night. It is not easy to do the work when it is clear that there will be little support around the table.

I had the opportunity to vote in favour of most of her amendments. I would like her to tell us whether she is proud to be Canadian knowing that her suggestions were rejected by all the parties in the House except for the sovereignists.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois for the rigorous work he did in committee, particularly by moving amendments and focusing his efforts on improving the bill.

I am a sovereignist myself, but for planet Earth. I work tirelessly for our future and the future of our grandchildren, but today I am afraid. It is not yet too late for the Earth or for us here, on this planet, but it is almost too late. Time is of the essence. This bill is a threat to the climate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member believes deeply in rail transportation and having affordable transportation for all folks. Would she perhaps grant me that one of the national projects that could be approved is additional rail? It would help all Canadians and is really the reason Canada exists to begin with.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Northumberland—Clarke. We worked together in an informal rail caucus to promote the use of passenger rail. It should be linked with affordable bus transportation. Most Canadians cannot afford to get from place to place on public transit, because it is so limited.

There are many great projects; I grant him that, and I would love to see them move ahead: an east-west, north-south electricity grid and an interlinked passenger rail and bus system. There are many projects in the national interest, but we do not know what they will be, and the factors in the bill are not requirements. We could have a great project that we all want to see go ahead or we could have a nightmare, and right now, there is no way to know the difference. We have to just cross our fingers and hope that the government's plans are good ones, because this, as the old expression goes, is a pig in a poke or a blank cheque. That is what we are passing when the bill is forced through.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 1:50 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 report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 24. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the questions to be put on Motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 18.

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

[Chair read text of Motion No. 1 to House]

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #23

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. A negative vote on Motion No. 4 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 5.

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

I see the chief government whip rising.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberals voting against.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply, with Conservatives voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote, and I vote yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #24

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 5.

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

I see the chief government whip rising.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberals voting against.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, with Conservatives voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #25

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare Motion No. 5 carried.

The question is on Motion No. 7.

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

The chief government whip.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberals voting in favour.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, with the Conservatives voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree to apply the vote, voting yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #26

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare the motion carried.

The question is on Motion No. 9. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 16.

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

The chief government whip.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberals voting yes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #27

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare Motion No. 9 carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 16 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 11.

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberals voting nay.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, with the Conservatives voting against.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote, voting yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #28

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare Motion No. 11 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 15. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 21 to 23.

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberals voting nay.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, with the Conservatives voting in favour.

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

The Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

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

The NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote, voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #29

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare Motion No. 15 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 21 to 23 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 18.

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberals voting yea.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, with the Conservatives voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and am voting in favour.

(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #30

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare Motion No. 18 carried.

The question is on Motion No. 19.

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberals voting nay.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, with the Conservatives voting against.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate to be the exception, but I vote yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #31

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare Motion No. 19 defeated.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We ask for a recorded vote, please, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vote #32

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I declare the motion carried.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 21 on page 15 with the following:

“(3) The Minister must, not later than 30 days before the”

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C‑5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 10 with the following:

“with the government of the province or territory in which the project will be carried out, and obtain its written consent if the project falls within areas of exclusive provincial or territorial jurisdic-”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)