Debates of June 13th, 2025

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague would like to comment on the truth about the fact that modular homes are being built by folks who are part of the Prime Minister's community. Brookfield, which has moved to the States and has no accountability here anymore, in 2021, actually spent $5 billion on one of the largest modular home construction companies in the world.

Does the member think that might have something to do with this?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the jokes on this write themselves.

We are talking about a bill that gives ministers the ability to pick and choose who gets these billion dollar projects with a government whose record on this is absolutely deplorable, whether it is GC Strategies or the green slush fund. Now the Liberals are pushing modular housing. Of course, Brookfield has a major interest in this.

The Prime Minister has not disclosed his assets that he still has from Brookfield. Let me ask this: Is it shocking that a Prime Minister who probably still owns shares and options, etc., in Brookfield is pushing for modular housing that would improve the profitability of Brookfield? I am not surprised at all, and I do not think Canadians are either.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to share an observation. What is happening in the House right now is fascinating. The Conservatives and the Liberals are making a show of arguing when, actually, the Liberal-Conservative coalition is working together to impose closure on this bill.

The Conservatives are saying that the Liberals stole their plan and that is why they got elected. The Liberals are saying that they were elected to fulfill their current mandate.

The truth is anything but. In my riding, and I think many of my colleagues from Quebec can relate to this, people told me they were going to vote Liberal because they were worried about getting a prime minister who would act like Mr. Trump, in other words, someone who would govern by executive order, with no regard for democracy.

Ultimately, that is what we are seeing now. We have a Prime Minister who wants to act by fiat and could not care less about democracy, since imposing closure at this stage, without a single second of debate, is unacceptable in a democracy.

How will my colleague be able to look at himself in the mirror tonight if he votes in favour of this closure motion?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was not listening to my speech. I was highly critical of this particular piece of legislation because of its effects on unions and skilled trades and the opportunity for government corruption and graft, which there is a well-documented history of.

I am not sure I agree with the member's analysis of the election results, but the voter is always right, and this is where we are. We will continue to attack what I perceive as—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Northumberland—Clarke.

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

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to give a speech in the House of Commons, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to spend 30 seconds of my speech thanking my volunteers, my family, and my wonderful community for sending me back here for the third time to represent the great people of Northumberland—Clarke. I thank them all. Their contributions were immeasurable and amazing.

Now I am going to talk about the business of today, which is Bill C-5. Bill C-5 is divided into two different pieces of legislation or parts. The first is the free trade and labour mobility act in Canada; the second is the building Canada act.

The free trade and labour mobility act has also been divided into two. There are two major initiatives within it. Both have to do with federal standards. The first is to say that any product or service that is authorized or licensed by the province would now be recognized by the federal government. In a similar vein, any provincially recognized profession would now be recognized federally.

The second part of the bill is with respect to the building Canada act. The building Canada act has to do with getting projects built that are in the “national interest” of Canada. This legislation is quite ironic because it really says that all those walls, which were put in place over the last decade to stop major projects, would be removed if major projects were in the national interest. Why not just remove those walls to begin with? However, I digress.

Most of my comments will be about the free trade and labour mobility act. The member for Lakeland did a fantastic job. I recommend her short and pithy, but poignant, speech about the building Canada act to anyone who has the opportunity to check it out. She was right on point. However, when it comes to the free trade and Canada act, I think it is important to look at a little bit of context.

Members should remember that not too long ago we had a federal election. Of course, one of the major themes or discussion points in that election was what Canada's response would be to the Trump tariffs, to the pressure coming from perhaps limited access to our greatest trading partner. Both major parties said we should look at trading more within Canada. Numbers such as $200 billion were thrown out there as the amount of additional economic benefits that could come from eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and increasing trade within Canada.

I just want to read a couple of quotes from the Prime Minister on the election trail. On April 5, he said, “Our government has committed to remove all federal restrictions on mobility by Canada Day. Free trade in Canada. Free mobility by Canada Day”. On April 17, the Prime Minister said, “Secondly, to commit the federal government to do its part by Canada Day... So, free trade in Canada by Canada Day”. On April 20, the Prime Minister said, “Our government will do our part for free trade in Canada. We will legislate the removal of all federal restrictions by July 1st. Free trade in Canada by Canada Day”.On April 21, the Prime Minister said, “And we'll work with the provinces to make sure all our health care professionals can work anywhere in Canada, as part of a drive for free trade in Canada by Canada Day.”

It is pretty clear what the Prime Minister committed to. He committed to having no interprovincial trade barriers by July 1, specifically, neither provincial and federal. That is what free trade in Canada by Canada Day means. The reality is that that will not happen even if this legislation gets passed by July 1. The reason is that the scope of this legislation is so very limited. It is limited to products, services and occupations that are federal in nature.

The reality is that most products and services, or at least a large portion of them, are regulated by the provinces. Most occupations are regulated provincially. For example, if a nurse who was accredited in B.C. wants to move to Ontario, they have to be re-accredited in Ontario. This legislation will not affect that. There will be a very limited impact on labour mobility in Canada by July 1, even going forward. With respect to products and services that is also usually the case. The products are regulated at the provincial level. The barriers then stop interprovincial trade from occurring.

I have a spoiler alert to everyone out there: The Liberals have already broken a promise. We will not have free trade in Canada by Canada Day.

There was a much more sensible approach. Instead of misleading Canadians during the election, they could have done what our leader, Pierre Poilievre, did and actually have a plan that would work, that would deliver real financial and economic benefits for Canada.

The first part would be to incentivize provinces. What is happening here is that the government is failing to meet the moment. We had an opportunity. Often, crises come with opportunities. There was a silver lining. It was creating momentum towards free trade. We saw the premiers working on their own accord to tear down barriers, but the federal government could have had a big role.

In accordance with the Conservatives' campaign promise, the government could have provided financial incentive. It could have included in this legislation that if the provinces tear down x barrier, they will get this much more money from the federal government. The best part about this is that these types of benefits actually pay for themselves. As Trevor Tombe and others have written, the financial benefit of actually reducing barriers, and not just making a press conference or a show of it, is hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal government could share some of the benefit from that with the provinces, but it chose not to.

The other part is that the government could have worked with provinces to create that Blue Seal program, allowing nurses, doctors and other health care professionals to work from coast to coast. Instead, the government has sort of gone from elbows up to turn, tuck tail and run. It continues to walk away from anything that is difficult or hard. The government could have used the momentum it had gathered, worked with premiers who are more than willing. I must say, our premiers have done a great job in many respects to tear down these barriers, but federal leadership here would have been invaluable. However, once again, the government, well, it just does not do “hard”.

For example, one thing the government could have done to make major progress was work to eliminate various trucking standards. This may not sound like the fanciest or the most exciting topic in the world, but it is incredibly important, because nearly every product we receive that goes on the shelves goes in a truck at some point.

Right now, we have a myriad of different trucking regulations, from different weights to different safety restrictions. Some estimates put an increase in freight rates at 8%, affecting Canada's GDP by $1.6 billion. If we were able to get a harmonized or mutual recognition system in the trucking industry, that would literally make almost every product in our country cheaper. At a time when we see grocery prices going through the roof, and an affordability crisis, would that not be something great for Canadians to have?

The Prime Minister could have made bold decisions. Instead of these little baby steps along the way, he could have made bold steps, such as repealing Bill C-69, which would have allowed projects to be approved, which would have allowed those national projects that have forever stitched our country together, a country that started with the railroad that built our country. We need those national projects both for our economy and also to bring us together, to unite us. Those projects will continue to be extremely difficult in the absence of a repeal of Bill C-69.

Quite frankly, although the building Canada act may get more projects built, would it not be more sensible to instead tear down the framework of Bill C-69? The last decade has proven the government cannot get major projects in place. Build it down, restart the process, open up with a one-window project, not just for those who are friends of Liberal insiders but for all Canadians, for all proponents who are willing to throw down their hard-earned money in order to build national projects.

Instead of the Prime Minister rising to meet the moment, to eliminate all interprovincial trade barriers, to bring our country together, to make our country greater and more prosperous, the government decided to take the easy way out and make small revisions to interprovincial trade that will not accomplish it. Instead of saving the Canadian economy billions and creating more prosperity from coast to coast, it will merely be another photo op, another wrong step along the way towards interprovincial trade, towards making Canada a truly free trade zone.

Here is to free trade in Canada on the Canada Day when Conservatives have a majority government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was absolutely encouraging when we had the Prime Minister gather with all the premiers in Saskatchewan, where they talked about one Canadian economy. Let there be no doubt that this legislation is substantial and does show the national government, under the new administration, a new prime minister, taking a very strong stand that reflects the will of Canadians, who gave us a mandate back on April 28. I believe it is an outstanding performance to this point.

The member makes reference to labour, health care workers, for example. The question I have for the member—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, someone who is not a member of this chamber was, a moment ago, taking photos on the other side.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the member for the intervention. I was made aware.

We have asked about it to determine who the individual was and whether they were taking photos. Obviously, non-members are not permitted on the floor of the House of Commons, even behind the curtains, and there is no opportunity to take pictures, period, by members or non-members within the chamber. I will say that as a reminder, and we are looking into what has gone on.

I will ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North to quickly finish his question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will get right to the question.

I am sure the member understands that, whether it is nurses or doctors, we have to have the provinces on side. They are the ones that have to take down those barriers. It is one of the reasons we have to have the provinces involved.

Would the member not agree that the provinces need to step up to the same degree—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Clarke.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have, quite frankly, been proud of the way the provinces have moved on this. My problem is that during the campaign, the Prime Minister did not say the Liberals would talk to the provinces and do their best. He said there would be free trade in Canada by Canada Day. He misled Canadians, and that is very troubling. It was a big part of the election campaign and, quite frankly, he misled Canadians. That is just not right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and got the impression that he has grievances against the government and that he disagrees with its actions.

Did I misunderstand? Is this member preparing to vote in favour of gagging debate on the important bill C-5?

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member to hopefully improve this piece of legislation.

The challenge here is that this is a baby step; it is a bread crumb. We really needed a major leap. If done right, it could save hundreds of billions of dollars and make the people of Quebec wealthier, but unfortunately, the government has decided to take baby steps when we needed a giant leap.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to expand a bit on the hypocrisy of this programming motion, considering the former minister of internal trade in the Liberal government, who is still in cabinet, just said on February 5 that within 30 days, interprovincial trade barriers would be eliminated.

Mr. Poilievre tabled a blue seal proposal over two years ago, and now we are in a huge rush to put this bill through. The House could have been reconvened in February, and we could have dealt with this months ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberals have been in power for the last decade. They did make a half-hearted attempt with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 2017, but they have not been serious. If they had been serious, they would have, in the decade they had to fix this, brought all the premiers around the table and demonstrated the economic importance of tearing down all interprovincial trade barriers and making sure that Canada was strong.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have been focused on legislation like Bill C-69, the gas cap and other legislation that is meant to weaken the Canadian economy and has left us in a difficult situation, having the lowest GDP per capita since the Great Depression.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member bringing up the issue of labour mobility, something I have spoken about with Joe Mancinelli many times. As a professional structural engineer licensed in the province of Ontario, I can say it is a real issue for professionals to have provincial regulatory agencies and to not be able to practise across provinces.

Would the member agree that the federal action on having one Canadian economy would encourage further provincial action?

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the government could have used the power of the bully pulpit and of the Prime Minister to show true leadership by outlining a vision, to both the premiers and all of Canada, of how we get to interprovincial trade.

We knew at the time of the campaign that the Prime Minister misled Canadians when he said there would be free trade in Canada. What he should have done, which is what our leader did, is put out a detailed plan to eliminate those barriers and get Canadians the $200-billion benefit.

Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the Whole

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of misleading, I rise with respect to the notice that I provided to you under Standing Order 48, concerning the statements that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources made in a committee of the whole on Wednesday evening.

In brief, the minister repeatedly denied, when questioned, that politicians would be empowered to pick projects of national interest under the Liberal government's project development legislation that is now before Parliament. However, that is the very essence of what Bill C-5 proposes to empower the government to do. As we know, it is a contempt to mislead the House of Commons or any of its committees deliberately.

I will therefore argue that the minister misled the committee of the whole, giving rise to a prima facie contempt. First, the minister's statements during the committee of the whole on Wednesday evening flatly contradict Bill C-5 itself.

I asked the minister, “how do political, hand-picked projects give investors certainty?” The minister replied, “the politicians do not pick the projects.”

I asked again, soon after, for clarity, “the minister said earlier, and kept trying to claim, that he does not approve projects, but his own bill says he does. Is that not true?” The minister answered, “I think what we said is that we do not pick the projects.”

These responses were clear and direct. They were answers to very specific questions about whether the minister himself would select projects deemed to be in the national interest through Bill C-5, and the legislation shows that he would.

Bill C-5 would explicitly give the minister the authority to approve or deny projects. This authority appears in several key provisions of the bill.

Part 2(c):

requires the minister who is designated under that Act to issue to the proponent of a project, if certain conditions are met, a document that sets out conditions that apply in respect of the project and that is deemed to be the authorizations, required under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations, that are specified in the document.

Further, clause 5(1) of the bill grants the Governor in Council and cabinet the authority to designate projects as being in the national interest, but only on the recommendation of the minister. It states:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project is in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend Schedule 1 to add the name of the project and a brief description of it, including the location where it is to be carried out.

The minister also holds the authority to remove projects from schedule 1. That power is set out in the deletion clause:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project named in Schedule 1 is no longer in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend that Schedule to delete the name and the description of the project.

These provisions, directly from Bill C-5, make it absolutely clear that the minister and the Governor in Council do pick the projects. That is the fundamental mechanism of the bill.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 82, provides a list of established grounds for contempt, including “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”. This point is reiterated at page 112.

The importance of accurate information being provided to Parliament has been underscored in a number of rulings, including that made by one of your predecessors on March 3, 2014, at page 3430 of the Debates:

This incident highlights the primordial importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten.

Speaker Milliken shared a similar view in a ruling on February 1, 2002, on page 8581 of the Debates, when he said, “The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.”

There is a well-established test for determining whether deliberately misleading information has been provided, which, for example, the Speaker explained in his February 15, 2024, ruling, at page 21146 of the Debates: “It must be proven that the statement was misleading; it must be established that, when making a statement, the member knew it to be incorrect; and finally, it must be demonstrated that the member intended to mislead the House.”

In the circumstances, I would respectfully submit that all three branches of this test can be made out. First, the content of Bill C-5, which I cited earlier, plainly contradicts the minister's answers.

Second, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has been held up by the Liberal government ever since the spring's election as the man who is supposed to get major resource projects launched. There can be no way that he is not intimately familiar with the details of Bill C-5, the policy for which it stands and the government's intentions for how to put it into effect.

Third, we must recall the context of the minister's answers. He was intensely questioned on the floor of the House of Commons for four hours, on the Liberals' terrible record over the last 10 years in the resource sector and trying to defend and spin his Prime Minister's signature bill, which had already been attracting a significant degree of scrutiny from all corners.

In any event, intention is not something that, I would respectfully submit, requires ironclad proof like a confession. Indeed, the procedure and House affairs committee, at paragraph 15 of its 50th report, presented in March 2002, acknowledges that intention may well be a matter for committee investigation:

As [then clerk of the House] Mr. Corbett explained to the Committee, it is not uncommon for inaccurate statements to be made in the course of debate or Question Period in the House. The issue is whether the statements were made deliberately, with the intent of misleading the House or its Members. In the case where a Member later admits to having knowingly provided false information – as in the Profumo case – the issue of intent is clear. In the absence of such an admission, however, it rests with the Committee to examine all of the circumstances and determine whether the evidence demonstrates an intention to mislead.

Finally, there is just one further procedural point I should add. Generally speaking, questions of privilege that arise in a committee setting are supposed to come before the House only by way of a report from the committee first, but the nature of committees of the whole, which are single-event bodies, complicates the ability to raise concerns that arise out of their deliberations.

You will recall that in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the House frequently sat in committees of the whole. A similar question of privilege arose, on which Speaker Rota addressed this procedural angle in his July 22, 2020, ruling, at page 2701 of the Debates, “I accept that the particular circumstances of this situation, notably the challenge surrounding the committee of the whole format, do make it appropriate to bring the matter to the Speaker.”

In conclusion, I would submit that the necessary thresholds have been met here, allowing for you to make a prima facie finding. Should you agree, in order to allow for the error to be fully and properly cleared and to ensure appropriate respect for the overarching importance of government accountability to Parliament, to all of us who represent the people, I intend to propose referring the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for further consideration.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for Lakeland for her intervention. The Chair will take it under deliberation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Guelph.

It is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-5 to create one Canadian economy. As this is the first time I have had the opportunity to rise in the House to deliver a speech since the election, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the great people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for putting their trust in me to be their representative. Whether someone voted for me or not, I take it to heart each and every day that I am here to represent them, to be their voice in Ottawa and to ensure that the diverse needs of our region are met and are reflected by our government.

I would not be here without the work of an incredible campaign team led by Morgan, Leo, Tess, Norman, Chloe, Lilah, Lea, Natasha, Maira, Kiran, Fei and so many more, including hundreds of volunteers from all regions in my riding. I thank them for their long hours, their dedication, their hard work, and their belief in me and the work that we are doing. This victory is as much theirs as it is mine.

I thank my parents and my sister for their support and want to give a special shout-out to my nephews Haiden, Beckham and Sawyer for bringing so much joy to the campaign. More than anything, I want to thank my wonderful partner, Anastasia, for being there with me and for me every step of the way. I know this is a hard job that requires a lot of sacrifice for me to be away from her and from our home, and it is much appreciated.

This year, our country has been faced with an unprecedented challenge in this lifetime with the election of U.S. President Donald Trump and the unjustified and illegal tariffs he has wrought on our country. It has been with a great sense of pride that our country has come together in defiance of this threat. As a country, we realized that we needed to diversify our trade around the world, as well as build up our internal markets by tearing down interprovincial trade barriers.

One of our government’s first orders of business since this election was to table the one Canadian economy act. Canada's strength has always come from its people, but too often, our economy has not reflected that same unity. Outdated trade barriers, and fragmented and balkanized regulatory systems have made it harder for Canadians to build, innovate and thrive. We have been working with 13 provincial and territorial economies instead of one Canadian economy, and that has come at cost.

Whether it is a trucker trying to move goods across the provincial border, a nurse seeking work in another jurisdiction, or a business in B.C. trying to sell into the market here in Ontario, the message that we heard has been the same: It should not be this hard to do business in Canada. The two parts of the one Canadian economy act would change that. First, the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act would remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility so that Canadians and businesses could move, work and grow across the country with fewer obstacles.

Right now, Canada is losing billions of dollars a year in productivity and economic output because of fragmented internal markets. A recent estimate from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute pegged the cost of internal trade barriers at up to $200 billion in lost GDP. That is not a rounding error. That is a missed opportunity the size of an entire provincial economy.

Further, studies have shown that removing these trade barriers could lower the prices that people pay for goods by up to 15%. Needless to say, it is imperative and a no-brainer to move ahead with these changes. That is just the macroeconomic picture. On the ground, it is even more frustrating. Small businesses looking to grow and access new markets across provincial lines face hurdles that feel arbitrary. Workers trained to national standards find themselves unable to cross provincial borders without getting recertified. Consumers are facing fewer choices and higher prices.

The core idea of Bill C-5 is this: If a good, service or professional qualification meets the regulatory standards of a province or territory and those standards are comparable to federal ones, then it should be recognized federally for the purposes of internal trade and labour mobility. Canadians increasingly want to buy local, and not just from their province. They want to buy Canadian. By supporting efforts to harmonize standards and expand inter-provincial sales, we are giving consumers more choice and local producers more reach.

Another area where we can expect gains is in the direct-to-consumer alcohol market. This would be a game-changer to ensure that we have the amazing wines and microbrews from B.C. available here in Ontario.

I want to acknowledge the work of our provincial and territorial partners. This is not a federal-only story, even if this legislation is only with respect to federal jurisdiction. From coast to coast to coast, provinces are taking initiative. They are reviewing outdated exceptions, simplifying regulatory frameworks and demonstrating a growing willingness to work together.

Nova Scotia's free trade and mobility within Canada act, Ontario's memoranda of understanding with six other provinces to harmonize standards and reduce red tape, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador signing bilateral agreements to improve co-operation, and B.C.'s economic stabilization act are concrete, collaborative steps that Bill C-5 complements perfectly.

Second, as the Prime Minister mentioned during the campaign, Canada needs to do things that have not been imagined or were not thought possible at a speed we have not seen before. We need to seize the incredible opportunities at our disposal and build nation-building projects, such as interprovincial electrical grid interties, to better trade within Canada, and invest in ports to diversify our trade away from the United States. The proposed mechanism to do that is the building Canada act.

This new act would allow a single minister, after consulting with the provinces and indigenous peoples, to declare projects in the national interest and pre-approve them subject to conditions geared to protecting the environment. The Prime Minister further declared that projects would not be declared in the national interest and imposed upon provinces that are not willing.

Make no mistake. Bill C-5 proposes extraordinary powers that are only justified in an extraordinary time. Many would agree we are in that situation today. However, I would like to point out a few aspects of the bill that should be studied at committee if it passes second reading.

First, while it is hard to think it was not that long ago, the first ministers' meeting from just a week and a half ago produced a rigorous list of criteria that would inform whether a project can be declared in the national interest. However, the way the legislation is written would allow for unnamed factors to also drive decision-making. This should be carefully scrutinized at committee.

Second, the legislation would give a minister the ability to exempt any national interest project from an existing law or regulation based on the advice of a minister. If this type of power is to be in the hands of a minister, it is important that there be disclosure and transparency in how that power is going to be used.

Third, the powers this legislation proposes are due to be valid for five full years. We are currently living in a crisis, an extraordinary circumstance brought on by the illegal and unjustified tariffs from President Trump. I absolutely believe that if we talk to steel and aluminum workers or workers in the automotive sector, they will confirm just that. However, this legislation is due to be in effect beyond that, beyond what will be at least one more federal election, and we need to consider how this legislation could be used in bad faith by a future government.

Where there are issues with existing environmental laws causing undue and unacceptable delays in permitting projects in our country, I believe they can be fully reviewed and amended, hopefully obviating the need for these measures in the future. When a small business in Squamish wants to ship products across the country, it should be able to do that without running into arbitrary provincial rules, likewise if a health care worker wants to practise in Sechelt.

I can see my time is running out. I thank all members for their consideration. I look forward to questions.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the member opposite on the indigenous and northern affairs committee and hope he is returning there so we can complete that work.

In the member opposite's speech, he talked a number of times about interprovincial trade and reducing barriers, and what we have heard pretty much all day and throughout this debate from members opposite is that it just seems new to them, and all of a sudden, they have this great big idea to reduce trade barriers that they have just come up with. Meanwhile, we have been talking about this in the opposition for years. We remember the “free the beer” campaign and many others, where we were talking about reducing and eliminating barriers that hindered interprovincial trade. Also, there are interties. At the natural resources committee, we did a study in 2018 about that.

Why have the Liberals failed to act?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoyed working with my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes on the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

What I can say is that these are interprovincial trade barriers that have long been a drag on our economy. I think it was in 2017 when the free trade within Canada act was put forward, which dealt with a lot of those ones. Frankly, there are constituencies within each province that have prevented future action on this. Maybe one of the only benefits we can think of from the threat from Donald Trump is that it has led, finally, to provinces starting to reduce their trade barriers, and it is an incredibly important role for the federal government to support that and do everything within our power to reduce them as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we pass a bill, there is usually a reason. When we pass environmental protection measures, there is usually a reason. It is to protect the environment.

My question for my colleague is this: What part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act section that deals with disposal of pollutants in marine environments is unnecessary? Why do these protections need to be bulldozed to allow major projects to go ahead?