The House is on summer break, scheduled to return Sept. 15

House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned Members debate the government's motion to limit debate on Bill C-5, which the Liberals state will accelerate major projects and reduce trade barriers, fulfilling an election promise. Opposition parties protest the use of closure, arguing the bill is rushed, lacks consultation, and could weaken environmental laws and fail to address existing project barriers. 4400 words, 30 minutes.

Consideration of Government Business No. 1 Members debate Bill C-5, aimed at establishing one Canadian economy by removing federal interprovincial trade barriers and facilitating major national projects. Liberals argue it boosts economic resilience and Indigenous participation. Conservatives criticize it as a missed opportunity that doesn't fix root issues like Bill C-69, allows the government to pick winners and losers, and grants sweeping powers. Concerns are raised about insufficient consultation and limiting debate via closure. 15000 words, 2 hours.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives criticize Liberal anti-energy laws preventing resource development for allies. They demand $64 million paid to GC Strategies be returned, alleging corruption and lack of oversight. They attack the Housing Minister over his real estate fortune and argue Liberal programs fail as housing starts are down. They also highlight rising extortion rates and call for tougher measures.
The Liberals focus on passing the One Canadian Economy Act to get the economy moving and build projects while respecting Indigenous rights. They defend their actions against GC Strategies to protect procurement integrity, highlight efforts to increase housing starts, and address extortion and organized crime. They also promote national pride with discovery passes.
The Bloc criticize the Liberal government's Bill C-5 and the use of closure to force through energy projects and pipelines on Quebec without debate or studies. They argue this creates a Conservative-Liberal coalition favouring oil companies and disrespects Quebeckers and the Quebec National Assembly.
The NDP question food security in the North after a hamlet food voucher program was cancelled and allege Liberals provided disinformation about upholding section 35 rights.

Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 First reading of Bill C-210. The bill amends the Constitution Act, 1867 to eliminate the requirement for Members of Parliament to swear an oath to the King, replacing it with an oath of office. 200 words.

Petitions

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5 Members debate Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, which aims to remove federal internal trade barriers and expedite major projects. Liberals argue it reflects an election mandate to build a stronger economy against trade threats. Conservatives support the intent but criticize the bill as a "baby step," lacking transparency, and failing to repeal previous laws like Bill C-69. Bloc members oppose the bill, viewing it as a democratic setback, undermining environmental protection, and centralizing power, particularly objecting to the use of a closure motion. 37100 words, 5 hours.

One Canadian Economy Act Second reading of Bill C-5. The bill aims to boost Canada's economy by eliminating internal trade barriers and streamlining approvals for major infrastructure projects. The Liberal government argues this will deliver free trade in Canada and speed up building. Conservatives support faster projects but question its effectiveness. Bloc Québécois, NDP, and Green Party raise concerns about the bill's impact on provincial autonomy, Indigenous rights, environmental protection, and the democratic process, arguing it grants excessive power and was rushed through without proper consultation, potentially undermining democracy and representing an unprecedented power grab. 16000 words, 3 hours.

Was this summary helpful and accurate?

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

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her re-election and her coming back to the House.

I am curious to know what the member opposite thinks about the fact that the Conservatives asked for an election, we went to the election, and Canadians gave us a mandate to build one strong Canadian economy. Are the Conservatives opposed to removing the barriers across provinces to increase productivity in Canada, to make sure there are jobs for our young people and to make sure we respond to the mandate that Canadians gave us?

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

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friend on her success and victory here also.

The fundamental issue is that these are Conservative ideas. We are not opposed to building one economy and ensuring that interprovincial trade barriers are broken down. That is what we have been advocating for. That is why we have advocated for resource—

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

5:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

We have to resume debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue has the floor.

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

5:20 p.m.

Whitby Ontario

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Madam Speaker, I hear applause starting already. I would hope they would wait until the end of my speech, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

It is a privilege to rise to participate in this important debate on a landmark piece of legislation, Bill C-5. Our government has a nation-building mandate and a bold and ambitious plan for Canada's future. Our core mission is to build the strongest economy in the G7.

As a country, we are facing new and unprecedented economic challenges. Of course, we know that our sovereignty and economic security are under threat, but Canadians are resilient. We are ambitious. We are ready to think big and undertake a historic economic transformation that can deliver greater prosperity for future generations.

As we know, Canada's relationship with our economic partners is changing. The system of open global trade we have relied on for decades is now weakened and uncertain. Even without the illegal and unjustified tariffs launched and thrust upon us by the United States, it had already been clear for many years that Canada's economy was over-reliant on trade with the United States.

True, it remains the greatest bilateral economic relationship in the world and, in many ways, the envy of other regions. It is a historic and mutually beneficial relationship that certainly served both countries well and will continue to do so, both out of necessity and under improving terms that I hope are being negotiated as we speak.

The current reality is that diversifying Canada's trade relationships and building a more robust domestic economy have become as important as ever. What has not changed is that Canada has what the world needs and that bilateral trade benefits both parties. This is why the government is working to strengthen its relationships with reliable trading partners and allies around the world while also improving our domestic transport infrastructure, logistics and supply chains to create a more nimble and streamlined economy.

Delivering more of Canada's goods to more parts of the world and being a reliable and ethical source of natural resources for more markets will help build prosperity here at home. At the same time, when it comes to transactions within our borders, the government's goal is to create one Canadian economy instead of 13 as part of our commitment to strengthening internal trade within Canada.

Internal trade is an essential element for the Canadian economy; we all know that. It supports economic competitiveness by creating jobs, helping businesses expand, enhancing consumer choice and increasing Canada's overall economic growth.

As it stands now, internal barriers to trade and labour mobility across Canada cost as much as $200 billion each year. Therefore, removing those barriers that have held back our economy is critical to unlocking Canada's full economic potential.

Another major aspect of strengthening Canada's economy is to think big and get infrastructure projects of national significance both designed and completed faster. As a country, we need to accelerate the realization of major nation-building projects that will help Canada become the strongest economy in the G7, deepen our trade relationships with reliable partners and create good Canadian jobs. The government's goal is to unleash a new era of growth that will ensure Canada does not just survive ongoing trade disputes but emerges from them even stronger than ever.

This brings me to the proposed legislation we are debating today. Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, is aimed at eliminating federal barriers to trade and labour mobility. It also lays the groundwork to advance nation-building projects that are crucial for driving Canadian productivity growth, energy security and economic competitiveness.

First, the new legislation addresses the goal to create one economy instead of 13. It would remove federal barriers to free trade within Canada's borders while protecting workers, the environment and the health and safety of all Canadians. In cases where there is a federal barrier, the legislation would allow a good or service that meets comparable provincial and territorial rules to be considered to have met federal requirements for internal trade.

For Canadian businesses, this will make it easier to buy, sell and transport goods and services across the country. It sounds simple, but smooth internal economic flows have been stubbornly impeded for a long time. It is literally the friction in the economy that has been there for quite a number of decades, including under both Conservative and Liberal governments. These internal trade barriers have proven incredibly challenging because, of course, there need to be willing partners in provinces and territories to work on this together. It seems we have the will today as we face the threats that have come from abroad, specifically our southern neighbour. There is a new will from provincial and territorial partners to overcome these internal trade barriers.

The bill would also make it easier to do business across Canada by removing regulatory duplication and cutting federal red tape. It would reduce costs or delays for Canadian businesses that follow comparable provincial and territorial rules by providing a framework to substantially reduce the burden of federal rules that apply to trade across provincial and territorial borders. This, as I said earlier, could add up to $200 billion in economic activity. It could boost productivity by up to 7% and possibly even reduce prices by as much as 15%. This means that a good or service produced, used or distributed in line with the requirements of a province or territory would be recognized as meeting comparable federal requirements.

For example, a food product that meets one province's organic standards or an appliance that meets provincial energy efficiency standards would be treated as if it meets comparable federal standards. Federal recognition of goods that meet comparable provincial requirements would make it easier for Canadian businesses to sell their products across the country and, in turn, increase consumer choice for Canadians. In addition to tabling Bill C-5, the government is also committed to removing further federal exceptions in the Canadian free trade agreement by July 2025. This will help provide Canadian businesses with greater opportunity to compete across the country.

On the subject of labour mobility, the bill would provide a framework to recognize provincial and territorial licences and certifications for workers. For example, I hear from nurses in my riding of Whitby that they cannot easily have their certifications and licences acknowledged in other jurisdictions across the country; the bill would make it easier for them to work in other parts of the country. This is really good news for nurses and many other health care workers.

This means that a worker authorized by a provincial or territorial jurisdiction could more quickly and easily, in the same occupation, work in other jurisdictions. It goes without saying that making it easier for workers to get a federal licence by recognizing workers' provincial or territorial credentials for the same job benefits both the workers and the employers by providing more employment opportunities and a broader selection of candidates. It would really increase labour mobility across Canada and widen the pool of candidates for all employers.

The second and equally important aspect of Bill C-5, as I have mentioned, is aimed at unlocking and accelerating major projects of national interest. Such significant nation-building projects can help accelerate Canada's economic growth and create well-paying jobs.

Members might be asking, what are projects of national interest? I can say that they are projects that would make a significant contribution to Canada's prosperity and advance national and economic security and autonomy. They would do this through increased production of energy and goods and the improved movement of goods, services and people throughout Canada. The projects would strengthen access to Canadian resources, goods and services to a diverse group of reliable trade partners. Again, this is all within the national interest, if we think about what we are really focused on here, which is expediting major nation-building projects. They are in the national interest. They would help us increase productivity, help the movement of goods as they flow across the country and help us diversify our trade relationships and access foreign markets.

As some concrete examples, such projects could include highways, railways, ports, airports, oil and gas pipelines, critical minerals and mining projects, nuclear facilities and electricity transmission systems. The idea is that the federal government would determine whether a major project is in the national interest, again, based on consultations with provinces and territories, and it would only be designated following full consultation with affected indigenous people. Indeed, the government is already working closely with provinces and territories and indigenous peoples to identify and operationalize such projects.

The intention is for projects to be evaluated on whether they meet all the following criteria. I will reiterate them for those who may need a reminder. A project should strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security; provide economic or other benefits to Canada; have a high likelihood of successful execution; advance the interests of indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and to Canada's objectives with respect to climate change. I realize that is a high standard. However, when we come together as a nation, as we have seen over the last few weeks with the Prime Minister's meeting with first ministers, there seems to be a real excitement to build big things in Canada again, to get big things done for the good of the country and to stand up for our economic security and sovereignty.

When a project is designated, it would be conditionally approved up front, which is a very unique and significant change to how we have done things in the past. There would still be existing review processes, but the government's aim is to strike co-operation agreements with every interested province and territory within six months to realize the end goal of one project, one review. This means realizing a single assessment for projects, better coordination of permitting processes with the provinces and territories and streamlining of multiple decision points for federal approval to minimize uncertainty for proponents, which is very important. Our economy has been riddled with uncertainty, based on the threats that we have been experiencing.

At the PM's economic growth caucus, we had our major banks' chief economists come, and every one of them said the main word that they think represents where Canada is right now is “uncertainty”. There is investor uncertainty. It is hard for the bank officials to project what is going to happen. There is a lot of uncertainty out there, so this is our way of reducing that uncertainty. The goal is to send a clear early signal to build investor confidence and start investment in construction faster.

The ultimate objective is to reduce decision-making timelines on major projects down to two years. That is a significant improvement, whereas it has taken, in some cases, five years or even more. Getting it down to two years is ambitious, but I think it is good to be ambitious. When governing a country through a crisis, we need to be ambitious. We need to get big things built. We need to overcome these internal trade barriers. We need to expedite these large, nation-building projects.

A federal major projects office would coordinate and expedite these reviews, and it would include an indigenous advisory council with first nation, Inuit and Métis representatives. The results of the reviews would inform a single set of binding federal conditions for the project. We are essentially pulling all of the requirements into one, almost like a term sheet or a document that says it is approved based on all of these conditions.

That would make it significantly easier for proponents to go through the approval process, because they would have everything in one place. They would have one window, one office to work through, a streamlined process, and a will from the federal government to essentially get things done, instead of proponents feeling like there are all of these hurdles to jump through. These conditions would also include mitigation and accommodation measures to protect the environment and to respect the rights of indigenous peoples.

As we heard from His Majesty King Charles III last month, “When Canadians come together, Canada builds things that last.” As the Prime Minister has said, “It's time to build big, build bold, and build now.” After all, our country and economic security are under threat.

At this time, I would like to commend the numerous premiers who have already taken vital steps to break down provincial and territorial barriers to trade. This new legislation is aligned with those efforts to accelerate the mutual recognition of rules and regulations.

Earlier this month in Saskatoon, first ministers acknowledged the significant progress that has been made toward removing internal trade barriers and further facilitating the movement of goods, services and workers across the country. They also recognize that there is more work to do, and they are committed “to unlock multilateral, economy-wide mutual recognition and labour mobility”. That is their commitment. I think it is great. We are working together. For the first time in my 47 years, I have seen provinces and territories and the federal government aligned to work together. That is a great thing to see. I think we should all be very proud of that. They also agreed on the urgency of building major projects that produce and connect clean and conventional energy, goods and services to markets across Canada and the globe.

Likewise, on June 11, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue convened a virtual meeting with provincial and territorial finance ministers to advance shared priorities and strengthen Canada's economic resilience. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue welcomed the growing momentum among provinces and territories to reduce internal trade barriers and unlock the full potential of the Canadian economy, in line with the federal government's nation-building agenda. In keeping with the positive and optimistic tone of both meetings, the finance ministers agreed to remain in close contact in the weeks ahead and keep driving momentum to build the strongest economy in the G7.

On the subject of building things, the government is also going to undertake a series of measures to help double the rate of homebuilding while catalyzing a new housing industry in Canada. This will help to meet growing housing demand while strengthening the construction sector. At the same time, I would be remiss if I did not point out or put in a plug for Bill C-4, which is also before Parliament right now. This bill would eliminate the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes at or under $1 million and reduce GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.

This tax cut would save Canadians up to $50,000, allowing more young people and families, like the ones in my riding, to enter the housing market and realize the dream of home ownership. By cutting the GST, as proposed in Bill C-4, Canadians would face lower upfront housing costs and keep more money in their pockets. It would also have a dynamic effect on increasing supply, spurring the construction of new homes all across the country.

Back to the legislation at hand, Bill C-5 comes at a time when there is a consensus on the urgent need to strengthen the Canadian economy and make it easier for businesses and Canadians to trade goods and services by removing barriers. It takes all levels of government to make that happen. The spirit of co-operation in the face of adversity, which we have seen in recent months, is one of the things that built this country. It keeps it strong today, but it can become even stronger. I think we have come a long way as a country. We have built railroads. We have built great things before. Obviously, we want to build big things again. We want to build big, bold and beautiful. That is going to make us a stronger country.

The one Canadian economy act includes legislative proposals to remove federal internal trade barriers and advance national interest projects. It provides a framework to strengthen the Canadian economy, diversify our trade relations and increase domestic productivity, resilience and competitiveness. I encourage all hon. members in this House to support this important piece of legislation. It will make Canada stronger. We have the best country in the world, there is no doubt, but we can always build a stronger country.

I think it matters that we have the will to work together in this House across party lines. I know that Conservative members and all members of this House want to build big things in this country. They want major projects. They want to build a stronger economy. I think that, deep down inside, they want to preserve our environment for future generations. They want to ensure that indigenous communities can be equity partners in major projects. I think these things are core to the Canadian values that we have. I know they are core to our Liberal values on this side.

I feel very proud to be standing here as part of a government that is advancing legislation to build the strongest economy in the G7. I certainly stand for that. I will keep fighting for that. My constituents voted for me and for that vision. I am really happy to be here and participating in this debate. I look forward to all members' support of this legislation as we move forward.

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

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I think that, without a doubt, the oil and gas industry is probably the most nimble high-value and high-impact industry that can react to an opportunity, yet the lost Liberal decade was the result of the same obstructionist members from the previous 10 years who, by and large, still reside in the front bench across the aisle. They would like us to believe they can conduct a ballet pirouette that would put Karen Kain to shame and allow projects to proceed all of a sudden.

A project like northern gateway hit all the high points. Does the member opposite think that it would qualify?

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

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canada has so much to offer the world. It really does. I know that the members opposite tend to focus on pipelines and conventional energy, but Canada has so many advantages around the world. Our agricultural industry is a source of pride for us. Our critical mineral and mining industry is very much a source of pride for us.

Quebec and many other parts of the country have a strength in AI, which can augment and enhance productivity across industries. Business models can achieve a lot more and productivity gains can be had. The clean-tech industry, which I am obviously privy to, has a really large strength in Canada. We punch well above our weight. We have a lot to gain with a lot of possibilities.

I certainly respect the members opposite for wanting to advocate for conventional energy, but I think we must understand that we need a balanced—

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

5:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Mirabel.

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

5:40 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge my friend, the parliamentary secretary who said this morning in committee that the Liberals feel that they are right to impose a gag order, cut short debate, fail to send the bill to committee and short-circuit all the work of Parliament because they indicated on the first page of their platform that they intended to introduce a bill on free trade within Canada.

For the Liberals, the fact that there is a line about this in their platform and that there was an election that delivered them a minority is enough to diminish the importance of work in the House to improve the bill. What other items in the Liberal platform are so important that the Liberals could plan to pass them under a gag order after only a few weeks of sittings and thereby deny democracy?

I would like my colleague to give me a list of what other items in their platform are so important so that we know what to expect in the coming months.

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

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is great to receive a question from my hon. colleague, with whom I have served on multiple committees. I look forward to collaborating with him further. He always asks really good questions.

We are having a rigorous debate on this piece of legislation. I think it is a very important piece of legislation, and it is time-sensitive, given the threats to our economic security. Canada and Canadians voted in a government that had a platform in the last election based on building Canada strong. This particular piece of legislation would help us reduce those internal trade barriers and boost our economy through reducing red tape and deregulating on behalf of Canadians. At the same time, we are moving forward on expediting major projects. That is going to help get goods to market. It is going to help us generate more revenue for our businesses and grow our economy. That is good for Canadians. It is good for workers—

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

5:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

Questions and comments, the member for Bay of Quinte.

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

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Chris Malette Liberal Bay of Quinte, ON

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary has extensive experience and background in the field of sustainable development and environmental issues. We have heard some questions regarding the period of consultation on major projects. I wonder if he can explain for the House how the new bill, Bill C-5, addresses those concerns and whether he is confident that the time frame for the consultations is adequate.

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

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question and his reference to something that is a core commitment for me, which is to build a sustainable economy in Canada. I think this bill tries to strike a balance between where we are at as a country, having to move much faster, and also trying to balance that with protecting what we hold as core values on this side, which is to protect our environment. We need to ensure that we have projects and a major project list that contribute to our climate commitments and help Canada take advantage of the clean growth opportunities, but also have mitigation measures, accommodations and adaptations that can be built into the core requirements of any project.

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

June 16th, 2025 / 5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL

Mr. Speaker, obviously, as Conservatives, we believe in moving forward and building Canada. I am curious to know if there would be a public list of eligible projects that qualify under this legislation.

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

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I am glad the member asked it.

My understanding is that the major projects office would have a list that is developed in consultation with provinces and territories. Obviously, that list is not necessarily formulated yet, because I am not sure that all of the major projects have been vetted or evaluated due to the five-point criteria I mentioned in my speech.

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

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat my question because it is important.

According to the Liberals, the fact that this was part of their election platform is enough to keep Parliament from doing its job. That alone is enough to short-circuit democracy.

I trust my colleague and his ability to answer the question accurately. What other items on the Liberal election platform does he believe are so urgent and so important that it is worth short-circuiting Parliament and preventing us from doing our democratic work here in the House? What else is on the list? What items on the Liberal platform are more important than democracy and the fact that opposition members were also elected in the last federal election?

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

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON

Mr. Speaker, as always, I know my colleague asks good questions. We often disagree at committee, and I know we can disagree in this House. That is part of what it means to be a democracy.

We are not short-circuiting democracy. This legislation has been tabled in this House. We are debating it today. We have debated it on other days. It will be referred to committee. That is my understanding. The process is important, but it is also important to balance that with the moment we are in. We have a short window to get this bill through Parliament. We want to see major projects and see those internal trade barriers come down. That is important in order to respond to the moment of crisis we are in, where our sovereignty and economic security are under threat.

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

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, the election was not that long ago. Canadians, including those in the riding of Waterloo, were really concerned and commented about the one Canadian economy. It was a message that was quite well received. We know that premiers are onside.

Today we are having this debate, and the NDP is basically not even present while the Bloc is choosing to oppose the legislation but is not providing any amendments. The Conservatives are supporting it, yet are giving speeches as if they oppose it.

Could the member tell us what the benefits of this legislation are, and could he also reiterate the difference between federal interprovincial trade barriers and provincial ones?

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

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in that question, and I thank the hon. member, for whom I have the utmost respect, for asking it. I have served on committees with the member, and she is always insightful.

There are many benefits in this legislation. Obviously, increased labour mobility is key, but so are all kinds of cost benefits and the possibility of boosting productivity and decreasing prices for Canadians, which I know we are all concerned with. As well, there is the cost of living challenges, which I know my constituents and, I am sure, all residents in Canada are concerned about.

We could also get major projects built a lot faster and give investors confidence to mobilize the capital that is needed. We could do big things with timelines that matter, within a short period of time, four or five years, which is fantastic. Canadians could actually realize the benefits of major projects as we move forward.

There is much more I could talk about, but I think that is probably all I have time for right now.

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

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Belanger Conservative Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

I stand today to discuss Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, a piece of legislation introduced on June 6. The free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building canada act seek to unify Canada's economy by removing barriers to interprovincial trade and expediting major infrastructure projects.

The bill has generated a tremendous amount of feedback from the residents of Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt. I have received dozens of emails from people concerned that the government will manage to turn this initiative from something it claims would be good for northern Ontario into a mess. We have seen the Liberal government, time after time, introduce policies and programs that it claimed would help the economy, and instead, they had the opposite effect. I must say that I share that view. Bill C-5 should be a step toward economic growth and prosperity for all northern Ontarians, including indigenous people, but I do not have a lot of confidence that the Liberals will get this right.

The Liberal government's approach to this issue raises important questions about balance. Let us explore a few of its key components and the broader context it aims to address.

Part 1 of Bill C-5 is designed to create one Canadian economy out of 13. Canada's economy has long been hampered by interprovincial trade barriers, which cost our economy approximately $200 billion per year in lost economic growth. Barriers ranging from differing provincial regulations to restrictions on labour mobility have created disadvantages in our markets, making it harder for goods, services and workers to move freely across provincial and territorial lines. These barriers cannot continue if we are to compete in international markets today. For example, skilled Canadian workers, some who have decades of experience and training, are prevented from working in their fields from province to province. These types of regulations need to stop if we are to grow our economy and improve our productivity.

Bill C-5 should be a practical step toward streamlining trade and enhancing labour mobility, which could boost productivity and competitiveness in Canada. Although I support the notion that all Canadians should be able to ply their trade in any province, the devil is in the details. The Liberal government has not laid out how we are to achieve these goals. How will it get all provinces to sign on to these changes? The bill itself does not lay out the plan to achieve these goals of labour mobility. Will the bill, which allows labour mobility, stand up to legal challenges from provinces and other stakeholders who may not want to see this type of policy implemented? I am not sure the government knows the answer to that question.

I also want to take a minute to discuss the free movement of goods and products between provinces. Provinces have a combined total of about 600 professional credentialing bodies that regulate goods and services within their borders. These barriers exist in virtually every industry. Alcohol, dairy and many agricultural products are subject to these barriers. For instance, some products need to be inspected when they enter a province, even though they were previously inspected in their province of origin. It is these types of regulations that end up costing producers, and ultimately consumers, more money.

Part 2 of the bill, the building Canada act, focuses on fast-tracking nation-building infrastructure projects, such as pipelines, power lines and renewable energy initiatives. By streamlining federal government processes, the bill aims to reduce approval timelines from five years to two years. This part of the bill is particularly significant for my riding and across northern Ontario. Energy security and economic competitiveness in the global market, especially in the mining industry, are critical to the future of our communities.

We have all heard people speak about the vast resources of the Ring of Fire. The Ring of Fire is a massive mineral deposit that contains many components crucial to our modern industries, billions of dollars of minerals beneath our feet that could improve the living standards for all of northern Ontario, including indigenous people. The people of my riding would greatly benefit from the Ring of Fire project. Would the Ring of Fire be deemed a nation-building project? The people of northern Ontario deserve to know this.

I also have some concerns that the bill would empower the federal government to issue a single authorization document covering multiple permits, but it has not laid out a concrete timeline in the bill. There has been no discussion or list of what projects would be deemed as nation-building projects. Who would have input into this list? What would be the criteria to demand a nation-building project?

One of my biggest concerns is that the bill would give a tremendous amount of power to the ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office. We have all seen what can happen when too much power is put in the hands of a few Liberal ministers and the Prime Minister's Office. We could very well face a situation where there would be a high degree of political interference by Liberal insiders and decisions made on ideological grounds instead of what is good for the economy and the people of Canada. There must be openness and transparency in this process.

For instance, Liberals claim they will ensure consultation with indigenous people, but there is no definition of what that means or how that process would unfold. On this side of the House, our shadow critics have argued that the bill could be simplified by broadly eliminating project-blocking laws rather than creating exemptions. The elimination of Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 would be a good start. They could also look at removing the industrial carbon tax, which would help industries invest in new environmental technologies and growth.

Private sector companies need certainty, and the fact that this bill would sunset or be reviewed in five years does not give them the long-term certainty they are looking for. If companies are going to invest billions of dollars and create jobs, wealth and prosperity for the people of Canada, they need to know what the government is doing long-term.

Conservatives have long been advocating for the following measures to achieve energy security and a strong economy. We need shovel-ready economic zones. We need to scrap the cap on oil and gas, repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, axe the industrial carbon tax and remove unrealistic and punitive electricity regulations. If the Liberal government is serious about standing up for Canada and not having us totally reliant on the U.S., then it will do all of these things.

In conclusion, Canada needs giant steps. Bill C-5 is a baby step that would not completely address the issues that have been created by the totally misguided policies of the Liberal government over the last decade.

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

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member opposite to the House.

Earlier, one of his colleagues mentioned that they support, in theory, the idea of building one strong Canadian economy and removing the barriers. Why are Conservatives opposed to supporting the bill?

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

6 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Belanger Conservative Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague opposite that it is nice to hear the Liberals copying policies from the Conservatives, but it is not going far enough. We would like to do more, a lot more. What the Liberals announced is a baby step, not a breakthrough, even though the Prime Minister said himself that Canada is in a crisis.

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

6 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's tone tonight. During the last 10 years, we have seen the Trudeau government bring in policy after policy: Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the energy cap proposal and, on top of that, the energy regulations. We said at the time that the Liberals are making it difficult for private capital to form in the country for these big projects because of uncertainty.

The new Liberal government has put forward Bill C-5, which basically says that the whole system the Trudeau government put in place was completely over the top and has chased everything away. I know the member has talked about getting rid of some of these other things. Which would he prefer, Bill C-5 or for the government to address the awful regulatory environment created under the 10 years of the previous government?

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

6 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Belanger Conservative Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague said, the bill is an admission that Liberal laws are barriers to development. The way to unleash Canadian resources is to remove antidevelopment laws that block projects, such as Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the oil and gas cap and the industrial carbon tax.

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

6 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I hear some of the hon. member's concerns. It is interesting. The member referred to the same product needing to be looked at twice when it is coming out of a province and going into a province and so forth. I think sometimes things happen, and when it comes to the security of the country and its people, it is important that we take all measures.

Does the member recognize that the federal government is advancing this legislation to get rid of barriers to interprovincial trade at the federal level and that provinces also have work to do? Will he be working with the provincial government to ensure that Ontario products can make it across this country?

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

6 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Belanger Conservative Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen, there are a lot of regulations among provinces that are very different, and they all need to come together. I am not sure how the Liberal government would get that done, because we have seen in the past that it takes it a while to admit that it got things wrong, as it did with immigration. The Liberals said it took them a while to figure that out and that they did not quite get it right.

Conservatives want Canada to compete and achieve true economic and energy security. That means shovel-ready—