Debates of June 16th, 2025

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

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what stands out for me in Bill C‑5 is two numbers. I used to be an accountant and a banker, so I really speak numbers. We are looking at a 7% increase in productivity. I have been in business for over 25 years, and there has always been a productivity problem.

By making decisions right here in our own country, with our provinces and with indigenous peoples, we can do things better. We can cut $200 billion in costs and increase our productivity free from the influence of other countries.

We are taking charge of our own fate. That is the main takeaway here.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Foothills.

It is a privilege to rise in the House today on behalf of Edmonton Northwest, a constituency that borders the industrial heartland of Alberta, a constituency with some of Edmonton's largest industrial zoning, where men and women work on behalf of the energy sector.

Over the last 10 years of the lost Liberal decade, we have seen so much uncertainty. So much of our potential as a country continues to be held back. In a country with the highest amount of natural resources per capita in the world, Canada should not be in the position that we are in: the weakest economic growth among the G7; sending our allies, like Germany and Japan, to non-allied countries for energy; and sowing division amongst provinces, people and regions. As Conservatives, we want to unleash the power of our natural resource sector in partnership with all stakeholders, investors, indigenous peoples and all partnerships for the win-win benefit of all Canadians. Unleashing the economy needs to be measured and strategically done, rather than driven strictly by ideology.

One way of measuring success is by investment. Do the risk-takers feel comfortable enough to take that risk and make billions of dollars in investment? Well, it has been many years since investors felt safe to build large infrastructure in Canada. I personally was in a room hosted by British Columbia Investment Management Corporation just two short years ago, where a question was asked of those Canadian capital and investment bankers: What percentage of their portfolio was invested into Canadian infrastructure? The response was abysmal: maybe 5%, on average, with no outlook for growth.

Half a trillion dollars of investment has poured out of this country and into the United States over the last decade. This is due to Liberal anti-energy laws; the sowing of division in our country, pitting regions and provinces against each other; ignoring Alberta and the west in particular; and the villainization of our energy sector for all of Canada. It was not always this way, though. There was a time when provinces took the risk to invest in each other.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund invested hundreds of millions of dollars into other provinces. Albertans took the risk and made the prudent decision to invest in Canadian energy across provincial boundaries, such as in Hydro-Québec, the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Nova Scotia Power and the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal. Still today, multiple generations of Newfoundlanders come to Alberta to build the energy engine of Canada in Fort McMurray.

These investments showed we can work together in energy development. Albertans took the risk on other provinces, their resources and their people because we believed in Canada, and it was worth investing in. We believed it would make us a stronger country, and it did. Contrast that with today. When we ask Canadians what they think of Albertan resources and investing in each other, I do not think we get the same response.

Bill C-5 has all the usual talking points, and that is what this has proven to be. It is the same strategy of safe talking points and rhetoric. What are the measures of success beyond just the rhetoric of Bill C-5 and the legislation? What is the number of projects? How many of these would cross provincial boundaries? What is the investment number? What is the growth in GDP? What are the timelines? How much of that half-trillion dollars would come back to Canada from the United States? Is this tough talk against the States just that, just talk?

Sure, we hear the current government wants to get things built within two years, but it does not put that two-year timeline in its own legislation. I believe we can build at the speed of business. There is evidence. Our country has the capacity, the manpower and the ability to do right by our energy sectors. We have no shortage of experience as a country to get large projects done. Take, for example, the TransCanada natural gas pipeline. Back in the 1950s, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. built 3,500 kilometres of pipeline from Alberta to Montreal in just three short years. Still to this day, that Canadian, Albertan resource is heating homes in the east.

We proved as a country then that we can bypass the United States and build projects of national significance, proving that through natural resources, we are a strong, sovereign country. We can get things done. However, the ability to get things done has only worsened under the Liberals. They may tout Trans Mountain as a success, but the project, under them, went from a $5-billion investment to a $30-billion mismanaged project.

Is this the same level of excellence we should expect under Bill C-5 out of their new special projects office? The Liberals will also tout new investment of $5 billion into the national indigenous loan guarantee program, but I can tell members that $5 billion on a $30-billion mismanaged Liberal project would not cut it on Trans Mountain, and this same level of incompetence will not cut it on future projects.

Cedar LNG has raised the bar to 51% indigenous ownership on new projects, and this $5 billion that is supposed to highlight the new level of indigenous participation in this economy will certainly not meet that bar set by Cedar for the number of projects needed to make this country a superpower in energy. All of this uncertainty only undermines indigenous participation in the economy, sends mixed messages and sounds more like the usual reconciliation rhetoric. Uncertainty in indigenous spaces only means more uncertainty for Canadian investors and risk-takers to build the projects needed yesterday to make our country stronger internally and internationally.

Under this Liberal Bill C-5, the government will again have its own laws to make an excuse not to get things built. That is where the real answer lies. The answer needed to make Canada an economic superpower is to repeal Bill C-69, the no new pipeline law; repeal Bill C-48, the tanker ban; repeal the cap on Canadian energy; repeal the industrial carbon tax; repeal those things rather than being too cute by half with Bill C-5.

On this side of the House, we believe in building projects, as was proven and done in the past. What we do not believe in is more government rhetoric. We do not believe in playing politics of convenience with our national economy. On this side of the House, we do not agree with raising expectations of Canadians, the provinces, first nations and investors only to pull the rug out from under them, with excuses down the road from existing legislation. Every day that goes by, the Prime Minister and government are proving to be more of the same as the last Trudeau government, all about the photo op and not the result.

On this side of the House, we support building projects and unleashing the economy, and we will hold the Liberal government to account in that regard. On this side of the House, we believe in energy workers, and we believe in less red tape. We believe in legislation that would last beyond two to five years. We believe in government action that would last generations. We believe in energy security and going beyond photo ops. Canadians need affordable, reliable power and fuel so Canada can be self-reliant and achieve real economic independence from the U.S.

We believe in building things across this country for that mission. We believe in enhancing our ports for this cause. We believe in engaging indigenous nations effectively, rather than the same old talking points through third-party institutions. We believe in creating investment certainty for Canadian risk-takers. We as a country have done it in the past, and we can do it again with the repeal of Bill C-69 and those other laws.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really important for all of us to recognize that with Bill C-5, there is going to be an opportunity for it to go to committee.

I have posed this question to other Conservative members, and I appreciate how they are going to be voting. The question is this: Are there some specific changes they would like to see to Bill C-5? I do not necessarily want to hear about Bill C-69 or other pieces of legislation. What I want to know is whether the Conservative Party has any specific amendments that members would like to see to Bill C-5. I think it is a legitimate concern, and I am wondering if the member could provide an answer.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, it is too cute by half to try to separate out the bigger picture with the smaller picture in Bill C-5 and what it attempts to do.

The Liberals cannot get this economy built by saying one thing today and then, in two to five years, taking it back, which Bill C-5 attempts to do. Repealing Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the industrial carbon tax, those are the real answers that last beyond two to five years, when the Liberal government may take the convenient action of just pulling Bill C-5 and having us back in uncertainty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

The idea behind Bill C‑5, a bill that the government is determined to pass quickly, is to allow certain major projects to move forward without too many checks and balances. That is a matter of deep concern to the Bloc Québécois because we believe that the environmental protections put in place over the years serve a purpose.

Why is the part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that deals with the disposal of pollutants in marine environments so unnecessary that it needs to be shoved aside to make way for major projects that suddenly need to get done at lightening speed?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that environmental protection has to be done, but I am not exactly confident that the Liberals are the right government to lead that protection. Again, they say they are for the consumer carbon tax, and now that is conveniently gone. I share that same concern about this. One day they say they are for the environment, and then they do things like this.

I would say, going forward when it comes to marine biology and protection, that I want to see ports get built and I want to see the tanker ban removed, but I also want to see more legitimacy in the government to get those things done and to hold the Liberals accountable to the bigger picture rather than just the usual talking points.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that we see, again, an example of legislation coming out of the Liberal government that runs a real risk of abridging constitutional rights. Specifically, we know that the Supreme Court prescribed the duty to consult. We do see reference to that in the legislation. However, any consultation has to be meaningful, yet the piece of legislation would prescribe a foregone conclusion. If the office of major projects is interested in a piece of legislation, it would be gone and it would be done, so what is the point of any consultation if the minister is going to override any objections of first nations people?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I share those same concerns.

Last week in committee of the whole, the Minister of Energy said he has over 180 consultations with first nations over the next two weeks. How could he actually think that 180 over 14 days is meaningful consultation? The government is not a government that takes things seriously.

There are proven ways of getting things done with first nations. In my own private sector experience working with first nations in Treaty 6, 68 nations out of 72 signed up to buy a pipeline. That was driven by the first nations in the sector themselves, not with government interference from incompetence and with rhetorical talking points. There is a way, but I am not sure this is the way for Bill C-5.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, imagine that we are renovating an old house and we do not worry about the shoddy foundation, the rotted joists or floorboards and the rusted plumbing; we just hope that the new buyer does not notice that we have put some lipstick on a kind of an ugly pig. That is very similar to what the Liberals are trying to do now; they are trying to put forward legislation without dealing with the root cause of the rotten consequences of bad Liberal legislation that has gotten us into this position.

We all want the one Canadian economy act to pass. We want it to succeed. As Conservatives, we want pipelines built. We want energy projects completed. We want to see interprovincial trade barriers torn down and removed to grow Canada's economy.

It has been said many times that the most lucrative free trade Canada could have is the one we do not have within our own country, but as we walk through the process and as we listen to the Liberals, we can see that they slowly walk down on what they have promised and what they can actually deliver. Bill C-5 clearly shows that what they are promising is very different than what they would deliver.

Canadians will notice that the Liberals are building a house on a shoddy foundation, because nothing will get built unless they listen to the opposition members and make some amendments to the bill to ensure that we get things built, like repealing Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, eliminating the production cap on oil and gas and repealing the just transition, Bill C-50. Those are the things that would actually make an impactful difference to ensure that projects get built in Canada.

I want to give an example. The Prime Minister first came out saying that we are going to be building pipelines and national projects, and that we are going to have a free trade agreement in Canada by July 1. What is now being said is that we will have pipelines if there is national consensus, that the projects probably will not actually include pipelines, that provinces will have a veto and that we are not really going to have a free trade agreement by Canada Day because there is a difference between federal interprovincial free trade and provincial interprovincial free trade.

As we have a chance to look at Bill C-5, we see what is going on. I want to give an example. The Prime Minister keeps talking about how only national projects within the government's own interest would be approved, and that they must include decarbonisation of oil. What does decarbonisation of western Canadian oil and gas mean, compared especially to oil and gas imported into eastern Canada?

For example, in 2023, eastern Canada imported, on average, about 790,000 barrels of crude oil per day, valued at almost $20 billion. Those imports were from the United States, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia for the most part. By implying that western Canadian energy has to be decarbonised, it would have to be produced and transported under very different regulations, making it uncompetitive with what is imported into eastern Canada. I asked the government earlier if the same regulations and non-competitive rules would be imposed on energy imported into eastern Canada from places like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. It would not answer that question.

A renowned energy analyst, Dr. Ron Wallace said, “A federal regulatory requirement to decarbonize western Canadian crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil would render the one Canadian economy act moot and create two market realities in Canada—one that favours imports and that discourages, or at very least threatens the competitiveness of, Canadian oil export production.”

We cannot say we want to build projects and then put metrics and bars so high that Canadian energy projects and Canadian investment cannot actually reach that bar. We also cannot put the same regulatory burdens on energy imported to Canada. That is why it is so important to clear the deck. Repeal Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48 and repeal Bill C-50. Send a clear message to the private sector and foreign investment that Canada is truly open for business and that we are serious about getting these projects built.

The Supreme Court, as my colleague from Alberta said earlier, said that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional, yet the Liberals refuse to repeal it. As a result of Bill C-69, 16 major energy projects have been abandoned, worth more than $600 billion. Of the 18 LNG projects proposed by 2015, only one remains viable, LNG Canada, and that project is proceeding only because it was granted exemptions, by the Liberal government, to Bill C-69 and the carbon tax.

Meanwhile, some of our most trusted allies, Japan, Germany, Ukraine, Poland and South Korea, came to Canada asking for LNG. They want Canadian energy that is clean, affordable and sustainable, but nonsensical policies and a decision by the Liberal government forced those countries, our important allies, to go somewhere else for their energy. In fact it was one of the few times that I was embarrassed to be Canadian, when our allies, in their time of need, came to Canada for something that we could supply, that we desperately wanted to supply, and we turned our back on them.

However, those decisions by the previous Liberal government, from which most of the ministers are still on the front bench, have consequences. Germany even signed an agreement with Qatar. Japan signed an agreement with the United States, our biggest competitor when it comes to energy, and the value of that agreement is a 20-year LNG agreement with the United States valued at $200 billion annually, supporting 50,000 American jobs.

Those jobs should have been here in Canada, and that is just one LNG agreement. That $200 billion a year should have been building schools and hospitals here in Canada. The revenue from that one LNG agreement should have been helping pay down our debt and lower taxes for Canadians here in Canada, but instead that $200 billion is going to the United States.

While the Americans are creating jobs in the energy sector, the Liberals' ideological policies, by contrast, are killing jobs here at home. For example, the just transition bill, Bill C-50, will cost about 200,000 jobs in the energy sector, 290,000 jobs in agriculture and 1.4 million jobs in construction and building. In total, the just transition bill, Bill C-50, will cost Canada 2.7 million jobs.

The member for Winnipeg North asked me where I got that information from when I mentioned it last week. Well, a memo to the Minister of Natural Resources from his own department said, “The transition to a low-carbon economy will have an uneven impact across sectors, occupations and regions, and create significant labour...disruptions. We expect that larger-scale transformations will take place”. In agriculture, it will be about 292,000 workers; in energy, about 202,000 workers; in manufacturing, about 193,000 workers; in buildings and construction, 1.4 million workers; and transportation sectors, about 642,000 workers. That adds up to 13.5% of Canada's total workforce in all parts of the country. Can members imagine a piece of legislation that is going to impact 13.5% of Canada's workforce and perhaps put another 2.7 million Canadians out of work?

In contrast, the Americans are creating tens of thousands of jobs by unleashing their energy sector while we stand by and watch. In fact last fall, the Bank of Canada stated that we all see those signs that say, “In case of emergency, break glass”, and it is time for Canada to break the glass. We are saying that it is not time to take baby steps, which Bill C-5 would be doing; it is time to be bold. It is time to be disruptive. It is time to grab the opportunity that President Trump has given us.

At no time in my life as a legislator, as an elected official, have I seen Canada united, with 75% of Quebecers wanting an east-west pipeline. Canadians across this country want interprovincial trade barriers removed, and at one time they probably did not even realize what we were talking about, but they understand the impact and the potential that Canada has if we just grab it. We cannot just dance around it; we have to be bold. Bill C-5 needs to be improved, and hopefully the Liberals will listen to the opposition and take the steps that are needed to unleash Canada's potential.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I disagree on a number of points, and I would like to ask a question afterward.

It has been said that I am not proud. Fortunately, we Liberals are very proud to be Canadian and very proud to have been chosen by Canadians in the last election. Listening to my colleagues, I get the impression that the election campaign is still on, but it is over, and Canadians have made their choice.

We have here an important and ambitious initiative. Would my colleague be willing to work with us to move this bill forward, a bill that will truly unify Canada and make its economy much stronger?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague says he wants to be bold. I am waiting to see that. This legislation is not bold. If anything, it is underwhelming. The Liberals are over-promising and will under-deliver for Canadians. Absolutely, I think we have shown today that we are more than willing to work with the government to try to make this work because we want energy projects built. We want interprovincial barriers torn down, but this bill does not do it.

Once again, if the member is truly committed to working together on this, I would encourage him to listen to the proposals and amendments that are brought forward by the opposition to improve Bill C-5 to ensure it actually achieves what the Liberals are claiming it will.

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

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

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

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, that element of the bill almost seems like a doubling down on Bill C-69. One element of that bill that is so frustrating to private investors and applicants is the loop it puts them through to get any decision on whether their project will be approved. It ultimately comes down to cabinet and the government to make the decision, regardless of input, consultation and science.

This bill kind of reminds me of that. Once again, the government will be approving or picking the winners and losers. These things should come down to what is best for Canada as a result of consultation and science with all Canadians, not just a select few friends and elected officials within the Liberal government.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I love the hon. member's assertion that we need to be bold, we need to be ambitious and we need to be audacious. This is not the time for Canada to be timid. We talked about this during the election campaign because of the threats coming from the United States, but this bill is anything but bold. It is anything but ambitious and audacious. It is a very timid bill because it does not repeal the things that are holding our natural resource sector and our economy at bay: Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the industrial carbon tax and other mechanisms that need to be repealed for us to be bold.

I wonder if the hon. member can comment a little more about that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, if we listen to the hon. member speak about this bill, we could get the sense that there is universal acceptance of this bill, but, quite frankly, there is not. In fact, we heard a Liberal member of Parliament today talk about the concerns he has: the lack of consultation and the fact that this bill would trample on rights, including indigenous rights.

In the little time the committee will have to deal with this, if the committee comes back with substantive changes to the bill that improve it and address many of the concerns that we are hearing from across the country with respect to this bill, would the government accept those changes, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, throughout the day, I have had the opportunity on at least a few occasions to ask questions. I asked questions to find out if the Conservatives had any substantive measures they would like to see amended in the legislation. Not one of them would give me an example of any principled amendments. If they have principled amendments they would like to see, I would suggest they talk to the department and the minister.

If there are things that would add true value and can make a positive difference to the legislation, I am sure the minister would be open to them, but it is better to bring them forward sooner as opposed to later.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always impressed by the member for Winnipeg North's ability to warp reality. He is so darn good at it.

Earlier, he was talking about what people heard while they were going door to door. I can assure him that, at the doors I knocked on, people were outraged about the government paying $34 billion to expand a pipeline. If anyone were to talk to Quebeckers today and tell them about plans to implement a bill that will help accelerate oil and gas infrastructure, not one of them would be okay with that. I would actually encourage his colleagues from Quebec to tell him what they heard, because I am absolutely sure that message would be very different from the one he heard in his riding.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely confident that if we were to canvass the people of Quebec or the people in my home province, we would find that Canadians are genuinely concerned about the overwhelming issues of the economy, jobs, tariffs and so forth. This legislation is good for all communities.

I will advocate for the people in Quebec as I will for the people in B.C. or any other province, because what is in the national best interest is in the interest of all Canadians, no matter where they live. It is about improving quality of life, and we can do that if we are prepared to think big and stop complaining about our backyards. Let us be concerned about our backyards, but the Canadian interest, which includes those in Quebec, is something that I will always stand up for.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

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

I wish at this time to wish all the best in the upcoming nuptials of Justin Potestio and Dr. Namat Majaess. They are getting married and I wish them all the best.

I say with sincerity to my hon. colleague that we hear him talk so much. This is on a contentious bill; at what point are the other Liberals going to get the opportunity to ask questions? At what point are the other Liberals going to get the opportunity to give speeches? We hear about how much the government values diversity, and yet it has one person stand up every single day to ask more questions and give more speeches than the whole Liberal caucus. Is the member okay with that?

I cannot figure out why Liberal backbenchers are okay with that. Did they come here to sit on their hands and listen to him speak, or did they come here to make a difference for Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I get the feeling that the member opposite does not necessarily support my comments, and I can appreciate why. It is because I like to point out the many flaws within the collective Conservative mindset. You might have a few more members that stand up than we have on our side, but I can—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that I have absolutely no members.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives might have had two or three more members speak than on the Liberal side today, but they are all speaking from the same script. Different members stand up and speak, but if the core of their principled speeches is being fed to them from the back room, there are some issues with that, too.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to talk about an amazing event that took place in my riding, Bourassa. I am talking about the ninth edition of the Festival des boulettes, the meatball festival.

Everyone thinks that their mother, grandmother or family had the best recipe. People from many different backgrounds took part in this event. There were folks from Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Portugal, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Each participant rightly believed that their recipe was the best. A culinary program was organized by Les Fourchettes de l'espoir and the borough of Montreal North. It was a wonderful opportunity for people to come together and enjoy each other's company and conversation. I would like to thank the three women who are behind this initiative: Chantal Rossi, a municipal councillor from Montreal North; Brunilda Reyes, the director of Les Fourchettes de l'espoir; and our dear Sister Angèle, who has been the driving force behind this community-building project for many years. The most recent edition, which took place on Saturday, was won by a group from Bangladesh. I congratulate all the participants.

With regard to the bill, I will explain something very important when it comes to international competition. When a country wants to build a strong economy, it is very important that decisions are made neither too hastily, nor too slowly. Decisions do have to be made, especially in an international situation full of uncertainty and competition.

The opposition members are giving examples of a number of countries, including Japan, Qatar and many others, that have sped up their decision-making processes. The bill's main purpose is to speed up the decision-making process. As legislators and MPs, we were elected above all to defend the interests of Canadians. We are not here to defend projects that even the official opposition considers to be obsolete. Just last week, the Bloc Québécois was talking about obsolete projects that are delaying economic development.

We are proposing an ambitious, measurable project for which Canadians gave us a clear mandate. This project would make it easier to bring in many domestic and international investors. Now they are saying we are not being ambitious enough and that this bill reverses decisions made in the past. However, sometimes it is a good idea to reverse some of those decisions, because laws have been passed that can harm our economy and impede investment. What we are trying to do with this bill is simplify the decision-making process.

My riding is in Quebec, and I can tell the House what Quebeckers told me when I went door to door. Right now, Quebeckers are telling us that, with all the international competition, we need a strong, much more efficient economy. Decisions need to be made more quickly. Our political commitment as Canada's federal Liberal government is “one project, one review”. That is very important. Sometimes it takes public servants a long time to complete administrative reviews, and that is costing us opportunities. We are in an international environment where quick decision-making can be very important, especially in the current economic context, in which it is absolutely necessary.

I am therefore calling on the opposition to collaborate and ask us questions, but they cannot tell us that we are not ambitious and that this bill lacks clarity. On the contrary, we are proposing something exciting. Let us stop talking about the past and former bills. Let us talk about the future and let us talk about the current context.

Canadians were smart to choose an ambitious and bold government and leader. I am asking members of the other parties to be just as bold. I am asking them to work with us. At some point, it is time to respect the choice Canadians made and work with those who were chosen. I am asking members to collaborate with us and give us their opinion. Let us work in the interest of investors and let us work together to build one strong Canadian economy.