Debates of June 16th, 2025

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

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute all my colleagues in the House.

I find it rather interesting that we are spending a lot of time discussing the substance of the matter and the bill itself, when we are looking at a closure motion. After a little over three weeks in the House, we are already dealing with a gag order.

First, the bill itself is a problem. It is because two bills were merged into one. What the government has done is it has used the old tactic of putting members of Parliament in a tough spot by preventing them from doing their job properly on voting day. This makes a mockery of democracy as well, because there are two parts to the bill.

The first part is not very contentious. When we listen to the comments of members from all parties, it is not very contentious. The first part of the bill seeks to remove federal barriers to interprovincial trade. Basically, what we are doing is telling the federal government to take a step back. Ultimately, what the federal government will do is recognize each province's regulations to ensure the mobility of goods and services. They will say that if the good or service meets a province's regulations, it will be recognized. That is true decentralization. In a way, it is an example of federalism that could work.

However, they then throw part 2 of Bill C‑5 into the mix. The title of this bill is mind-boggling. The Liberals are telling us that this is a bill to create one Canadian economy. We read the bill and then we look at the recent behaviour of the Prime Minister. He is going to meet behind closed doors with the oil industry, which is preparing a list of oil projects and is interested only in oil and almost nothing else. When we read this bill, we see that there may be one Canadian economy, but it is the Alberta economy. There will be only one economy, and it will be Alberta's. The bill will serve the oil industry.

Now the Liberals are promising us free trade before Canada Day. What is mind-boggling, once again, is their definition of free trade, which is essentially that, if the Prime Minister likes a bill, then all other laws can be broken. The Prime Minister can talk to his friends in a certain industry, his friends then manage to convince a minister, who holds some bogus consultation and Ottawa gets its way. I am not saying that is what will happen, but the bill would certainly allow it and that it is dangerous in a democracy.

I personally have a hard time imagining the Prime Minister sitting down with Donald Trump in the south and telling him that our definition of free trade is to let him violate our laws when it suits him. I taught economics. I have spent my entire life studying economics, and I have never seen a definition of free trade that looked like the Prime Minister's definition. It is mind‑boggling.

What does that mean? If we go by the Canadian formula, it means that the definition of free trade would be to tell the Americans that we are renegotiating the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and that if there are any projects that suit Donald Trump, such as those that violate the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the 1994 Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Species at Risk Act or the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, then the Americans can come and violate the Impact Assessment Act, the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations and the wildlife area regulations.

Let us imagine for one second going to the United States and telling them that this is our definition of free trade. Everyone here would cry foul and claim that Canada's sovereignty has been violated, "sovereignty" being a word that the Liberals have suddenly rediscovered.

What is mind‑boggling, once again, is that the Conservatives are supporting closure. Their support for the bill would be understandable.

Why are they supporting this gag order? They are supporting the gag order because they are stuck. They have no leader. For years they have been talking about nothing but oil. Doug Ford stabbed them in the back during the election campaign. They have lost the political machinery. They are also getting stabbed in the back by Danielle Smith, who supports the bill. I would imagine that the Conservatives are telling themselves that they have no leader, that the Prime Minister is popular right now and that people will not actually remember how they are voting because they are too busy having backyard barbeques.

A few days ago, the Conservatives voted to steal $814 million from Quebeckers. There were two votes in one week, and the Conservatives voted with the Liberals against Quebec both times. What the Conservatives do not realize is that they can be in favour of the bill and still vote against the closure motion. They are spending so much time kissing the Liberals' feet that they are going to get a fungal disease, as my colleague from Jonquière would say. They just need to say no to the closure motion and let the committee to do its job.

The member who spoke before me said that this is the Conservatives' best policy option right now. That is why they will pass the bill the way it is. In other words, the Conservatives are voting to short-circuit the committee. They are voting in favour of not having enough time to amend the bill. If the Conservatives have a better definition of what free trade should be, they are now voting to deprive themselves of the opportunity to improve the bill based on their own convictions. That is pathetic. The Liberals were elected, and the Conservatives are rolling over and accepting the outcome. They are telling themselves that people do not want anyone to stand in the way and that the Prime Minister is popular.

What kind of democracy do we have if a gag order is imposed barely three weeks after the House comes back? The Conservatives are criticizing the Liberals because they have not tabled a budget yet. They are up in arms about transparency and accountability, yet here they are giving up the opportunity to do the work in committee. That work would give us a chance to hear from witnesses, and I am not just talking about witnesses from Quebec or about Greenpeace representatives or environmentalists. I am also talking about people who think like the Conservatives and who would try to turn this bill into something I would oppose. The Conservatives see doing that work as obstructing the Prime Minister, who appears to have become Canada's new monarch.

What do Conservative members do for the money they are paid? The 44 members from Quebec here in the House are right to say that there was a fear campaign during the election. They are right to say that Quebeckers elected a lot of Liberals. They are reminding us of that, and we are taking note. We know that; we are intelligent people. Those members were elected to defend Quebeckers. The ball is in their court. Quebec members are telling us that the Quebec government, employers and unions are in favour of their bill. The Liberal parroting has well and truly begun. They kept saying it over and over throughout question period. Well, then, why do they not send the bill to committee? Call the unions, the workers and the employers to appear. If they think that Quebeckers would support this bill in its entirety, why are they not letting those people be called to appear before the committee?

The Prime Minister met with his buddies from the oil and gas industry. A list of projects is on the way this fall. The Liberals still have not tabled a budget, however. Now they tell us that this bill can bypass the democratic process because it was written on the first page of their election platform. Where are the other pages? Where is the necessary budget? An election was called, and we were told that the world had changed but public finances had not. We are being told that we have to create a new Canadian economy with a bill that allows no room for consultations or democratic work. If the Liberals want to table their platform, they should table all of it. They should do all the work, not just half of it.

I see members from Quebec over there at the back, futzing around on their phones and ignoring the debates. They were elected to stand up for Quebec. Now the ball is in their court. They need to prove to us that they are going to stand up for Quebec. So far, 44 Liberal members from Quebec have risen to vote against a unanimous motion by the Quebec National Assembly concerning the issue of one economy, not 13, as defined by the federal government. Is rising to show contempt for all 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec the right way to stand up for Quebec?

So far, these people have shown that they are not doing what they were elected to do. Yes, there are a lot of them. Yes, there are 44 of them. The shame that they must feel for their behaviour so far must be proportional to their numbers in the House.

This closure motion is unacceptable. For the sake of democracy, this bill must be referred to committee.

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

Madam Speaker, who am I to defend the Conservative Party, but allow me to do so. At the end of the day, whether it was in Quebec, Manitoba, B.C., Nova Scotia or the Northwest Territories, it was universally established that people were genuinely concerned about the economy, Donald Trump, tariffs and trade. They were genuinely concerned. Whether it is the aerospace industry in Quebec or the aerospace industry in Manitoba, the legislation before us is a reflection of what the people of Canada, in all areas, were saying. That is why the Conservatives are supporting the closure of the bill, though they have some issues with some amendments.

Do the Bloc members have anything at all to contribute to the bill? Are there any specific amendments they would like to see? Will they stand up for the people of Quebec and Canada?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, before us are two bills that have been merged. Had the government given it any serious thought, it would have split the bill in two.

Second, the member for Winnipeg North tells us that the bill reflects the fear that Canadians were feeling during the election campaign. I agree with him that the Liberals campaigned on fear. That was their main selling point.

This bill also reflects the personal views of a Prime Minister who has total control over his cabinet and his government because he has appointed friends who have been with him throughout his career. It reflects his definition of free trade. It is a corporate definition that we have never seen anywhere else. As I said, it is a definition that Canadians themselves would never accept if these conditions were imposed by the United States.

The reason that the Liberals are pushing us to pass this bill quickly under a closure motion is that they see the oil industry as the only avenue for our future development. It is an electoral trap for the Conservatives. It is obvious that the government is happy because the Conservatives have fallen for it hook, line and sinker, like a bunch of amateurs.

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

Madam Speaker, we have seen some challenges, of course, economically, and nearly every economist in Canada, if not the world, says we need to build major projects and we need to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. Does the member agree?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the economists at the International Energy Agency have not said that. The economists at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have not said that. All economists are saying something: We have to take our time.

Where was the gag order in the Conservatives' platform and the Liberals' platform? Where in both of those parties' platforms was the idea of muzzling Parliament after three weeks? My colleague is going to have to let me know. When he went to see the people in his riding, at what point did he say he was going to vote with the Liberals to put an end to debate and parliamentary work, despite the salary he earns? After three weeks, this is what the Conservatives are doing with the Liberals.

I think if he had told his constituents that, he might not be here today.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always great to hear someone talk about the economy when it comes to a bill like this one. I agree with my colleague that it would have been a good idea to split it.

Beyond that, I would like to address the bigger picture. Parliament has been sitting for three weeks, yet the government stubbornly refuses to table a budget while projecting astronomical deficits. As for the opposition, it promises to be the official opposition, but it is in disarray and has no leader. It says that it will support this bill, which provides that this Prime Minister will not only govern without a budget, but will also define issues of national interest to which no laws or rules apply. What is more, the government is doing all this under a gag order.

Am I right to be concerned about a shift toward authoritarianism, or whatever this may be, where all the power is given to the government and there is no longer an official opposition? We in the Bloc Québécois are the ones who need to play that role.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals were so afraid of losing their seats over the past few months, before the new Prime Minister came along, that they fell prey to a cult of personality.

Now no one dares challenge this Prime Minister, who appeared like a saviour and says he is going to cut taxes, but will not say how he is going to pay for it, and this is after presenting a completely flawed economic and financial platform during the election. It has become a cult of personality.

I am surprised to see that the Conservatives are so afraid of him that they have fallen prey as well.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in the House to add my thoughts and the views of our constituents on various pieces of legislation. Today, it will be on Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

Before I get into the meat of the bill, I will say that this is my first chance to stand and give a speech in the House since the election, so I would like to thank my team working here in Ottawa and, of course, back at home, for their ongoing work. They keep the wheels on the bus and keep things moving. I want to thank them for their very hard work and professionalism. I would like to thank Marnie; Lisa; Tara; my executive assistant, Andrew; of course Mack and Paul here in Ottawa; and, during the election, the teams of volunteers, of whom there were many on all sides.

In our part of the world, in Ontario, we went through some pretty challenging weather. There was the big ice storm. Every municipality in my riding was under a state of emergency for a couple of weeks. It put a strain on volunteers of all stripes, but everyone showed up day in and day out. They kept knocking on doors, putting up signs and spreading their respective messages, so I want to thank everyone who played a part in that role. Our democracy is stronger because of their work.

I want to give a shout-out to my campaign team and my campaign manager, Paul; my EDA president, Derek; and of course my family for their unwavering support. For everyone in this place, if we do not have the support of our family, it is extremely difficult to do this job. My family has my back and is encouraging me to keep doing this, so I thank my family as well for the ongoing support.

We are debating Bill C-5 today. It has two main parts, and the first has to do with interprovincial trade. As we all know and have heard in the debate today, Conservatives have long called for the easing of interprovincial trade barriers as essential for boosting economic efficiency, fostering national unity and enhancing competitiveness in the global economy.

One of the most compelling reasons to dismantle interprovincial trade barriers is the potential for significant economic gains. A more integrated domestic market would allow businesses to scale operations more efficiently, access a larger customer base and reduce duplication and costs. Here in Ontario, it is estimated that could mean about $200 billion annually in the province. However, Bill C-5, as mentioned, only takes baby steps and falls short of where we need to be. I am afraid Bill C-5, unfortunately, may not have any impact at all in removing the barriers to interprovincial trade.

The second and probably most controversial part is around natural resource development. Bill C-5 attempts to address the effects of a decade of Liberal mismanagement of the economy by introducing measures to fast-track major projects in Canada. After an admission that the Liberals caused the problem through Liberal laws that have made it impossible to get anything built in this country, the Liberals have turned to allowing certain projects, like those that are politically favoured and lobbied by Liberal insiders, like maybe GC Strategies no doubt, to circumvent the Liberal laws.

Conservatives do agree with the Liberals that it is all their fault that the economy is stalling when it comes to natural resource development, and that their own legislation has hobbled the Canadian economy and has actually put us at risk due to the desires of the administration down south.

We have known about the ongoing dangers of the economic waters that have become unsettled; we have called this out for over 10 years. Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill; Bill C-48, the tanker ban, which will not let Alberta energy leave off our west coast; the emission caps and many more barriers and hurdles to economic growth and expansion have all been put in place by the Liberal government.

Fortunately, we have now gotten to a place where the Prime Minister is saying that if projects are determined to be in the national interest, federal reviews would shift from whether these projects get built to how best to advance them. Apparently, according to the Prime Minister and multiple media sources, this is meant to streamline multiple decision points for federal approval, while minimizing risks of not securing project approval following extensive project risk.

This would create a system where we have more people regulating an industry than we have actually working in it, which is a problem. Again, the Prime Minister has no problem creating more white collar desk workers with government authorities, simply to expand the class of people who will always be loyal to the growth of big government. That is a choke point for innovation and productivity.

Let us be clear: We are not saying, “Let us promote dirty air and dirty water.” We all breathe and eat the same things, and we want the cleanest possible. However, when we have a political class that has no compassion with respect to the impact of its decisions, because government always gets paid and first and never runs out of supply, that is a problem. It is clear that in the legislation, without the removal of key pieces of previous government legislation I mentioned, Bill C-69, Bill C-48, and many more, the regulatory system would continue to choke industry and continue to stifle investment from abroad.

What the Liberals would do, with the piece of legislation before us, is continue to reduce our ability to extract energy and sell it to the world, unless powerful lawyers and lobbyists cozy up to Liberal politicians to get their project fast-tracked. This would lead to more government control. Why is this? It is the same thing the Liberals seemed to love with so-called green energy, more like alternative energy. It is mostly about control. This way, the government would decide who gets the government grants and who would get the fast-track approvals to bypass the legislative regulatory framework.

Of course, it happened in Ontario under Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. We all know about the Green Energy Act, where favoured companies got big contracts and grants and were able to steamroll through legislation already in place that prevented some projects from going forward.

In essence, the government wants people to buy primary services from it with their tax dollars, with all of the grants going to its chosen companies, again, with some link to government. This is how the power broker class does business, and this is why government had no problem pushing TransCanada out of building the Trans Mountain pipeline. The regulatory burden, the framework, was so much that the company had to give up. The only reason the pipeline was able to be completed is that the government took over the project with endless resources at its backing, which is the tax base, the taxpayers of this country. That is why it got completed: through government control.

If we were in some bizarre world, some upside-down universe where there were windmills in abundance and we were getting a lot of our energy from them, and all of a sudden the government found black goop that came from the ground that was able to power cities and make car engines run faster, it would be in favour of it. It would be in favour of drilling, of fracking, because it would then be the government controlling that industry and that kind of energy.

With the free market, though, if we do not like a service being provided, we take our money and go elsewhere, and because of that dynamic, of course we get competition. Somebody is always trying to innovate a product or service to gain a share of the market. That means that people who are not happy with their current offering always find the path of least resistance; they find something better. That is why, with creativity and competition, we get vibrant innovation.

When a government agency or entity monopolizes a service, we get pre-approved innovation; we always get innovation based on what the government has in mind. There is always a conclusion, and the grants are handed out based on what that conclusion is. If we are lucky, we might get some supersmart people running a department, and innovation is able to happen quicker, but on the whole, if it is left up to politicians, unfortunately innovation comes second.

I think government is not good at running much. If it were, if people say, “Well, maybe government is”, I ask what would happen if the government ran the music industry. It would probably stifle all kinds of music that the government does not like.

[An hon. member]

Would it?

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

Yeah, it probably would.

Madam Speaker, we would not get the choice; we would not get the innovation. What is good music, right? I bet my taste in music is totally different than that of the member opposite, and that is a good thing. I guarantee that if the government controlled the music industry, we would get what government wants. We would get what the government tells us is music, and that would be unfortunate.

With competition, innovation and the freest of markets, we get better product, better quality and a better price. I think that is lacking in the bill. We do not address that. We are still working on the fact that in order to get fast-track approval, people have to go begging to government, whether they have the right lobbyists or lawyers, in order to get that approval. That is not innovation.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the election campaign, my campaign team and I knocked on thousands of doors and heard from many constituents across the riding about how worried they are regarding the economy and Donald Trump's tariffs.

Can our government count on the hon. member's support for Bill C-5?

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

Madam Speaker, what was clear during the election was that somehow the administration down south, which had been in place for about two months or so, maybe three months, was the focal point of the Liberal campaign. However, Liberals seem to have done a smoke and mirrors show, where the last 10 years of Liberal misery was forgotten about. Unfortunately, now we see the results: Crime is still through the roof, housing is in trouble and the inflation crisis is out of control. We just saw the latest food prices, and the cost of meat is insane right now. All these problems are still here, and they are here because the government is still the same as the one that was here before.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to comment a little more on the Liberal government's misalignment between its virtue-signalling announcements and its project-killing policies.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a fantastic question. I think that is the essence of all of this. On the one hand, Liberals say, “Let us get things built”; they say that they will get things moving and shovels in the ground. However, at the same time, they have a regulatory framework that currently exists that stifles any of that from happening, while companies that beg the government, are properly connected and maybe, hopefully, even throw a few dollars to the Liberal Party, might even get their project approved.

It happened in Ontario with the Green Energy Act; a whole whack of companies that received projects for wind turbines and solar panels were shown to have donated to the Ontario Liberal Party. I fear, unfortunately, that the framework the Liberals are setting up in Bill C-5 is a dangerous path to take; I do not advise it. That is why we have a free market, where people with the best applications go forward.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, we can definitely always innovate more. As the representative for the riding of Waterloo, I can say that we believe in innovation and in competition. There have been other members within the Conservative Party trying to understand what would happen once the legislation passes. They have been kind of misquoting the Prime Minister as saying that the legislation would actually be removing any federal barriers to interprovincial trade.

Does the member agree we are a federation and that all levels of government would have a role to play to ensure that we have interprovincial trade within Canada that is barrier-free, that all levels would have to pass legislation and that this is the federal aspect?

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

Madam Speaker, I do agree that interprovincial trade and removing the barriers is a good thing. I do agree that when those barriers are gone, we would be able to create billions of dollars in economic activity right across our country.

The issue here now is the fact that the Prime Minister, during the campaign, talked about getting interprovincial free trade done by Canada Day, and the clock is ticking.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my Conservative colleague would allow himself the same freedom to support the government on a bill like this knowing that, hypothetically, there would be an election within a year, that the next government would be formed by the Green Party and that our Green Party colleague, the leader of this new hypothetical government, would call a halt to all oil development going forward, would put an end to oil and oil subsidies and would lead us in a transition to wind, electric and other alternative energy sources.

If such were the case, would my colleague feel the same degree of pleasure and enthusiasm in supporting a gag order to pass a bill that gives the government and the Prime Minister all the power to decide what must or must not comply with the rules in force?

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

Madam Speaker, if I heard the hon. member correctly, I will say that is why market forces demand this kind of thing. Consumption of oil is expected to go up. We have a lot of it; let us get it to market and create jobs, opportunity and wealth right here at home.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to speak and to rise on a bill before the House in the 45th Parliament, I would like to take the opportunity to express my deepest appreciation for the people of Haldimand—Norfolk for putting their trust in me as their representative for a second term. I am truly inspired by the people of Haldimand—Norfolk, and I am truly honoured to be their voice in Parliament.

It is important for Canadians at home to understand the broader context of this bill, Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, which is before the House.

Before U.S. President Donald Trump took office, the Liberal government was asleep at the wheel. The sweeping tariffs imposed by Trump and his America first policy and his post-Bretton Woods quest, which seeks to upend the international order, while challenging for Canada, are not the sole cause of the current trade problems we now face.

Rather, this disorder has simply uncovered a deep fissure within our nation, which has been caused by a decade of Liberal policies that have left Canada weak and vulnerable. Far from being the maple leaf elbows-up patriots they presented themselves to be, the Liberals have questioned Canada's ethos and have undermined its national sovereignty over the last 10 years. They undermined Canada's sovereignty by diverting billions of taxpayer dollars to green revolution projects through the green slush fund that has been proven to benefit Liberal insiders.

They bet against the oil and gas sector by shutting down pipeline projects while favouring the green investments from foreign, autocratic countries with worse environmental records than Canada. The social fabric of our nation and our society was also eroded during the last 10 years of Liberal leadership, creating disunity and making us vulnerable to external threats.

It is surprising to see the same Liberal Party that attacked our national identity by changing the names of streets, by tearing down statues of national leaders and by removing national heroes like Terry Fox from our passport turn around and put their elbows up and become the flag-bearers of national pride.

We have the third-largest accessible oil reserves on the planet, which we leave untapped. Once it is extracted, it goes almost exclusively to the Americans, who refine it and sell it back to us at a profit. This reality exists because the Liberal government failed to have a vision for future generations of Canadians and instead prioritized its own ideological goals for its own political survival.

The Liberal government has blocked the production of ethical oil in Canada and blocked LNG and oil development from going to international markets. We have failed to build our export capacity, and we have nearly become dependent on the U.S. market. As the G7 meets today on Canadian soil, in the beautiful, resource-rich province of Alberta, we, sadly, have the unfortunate status of being the economy with the worst economic growth.

The world's economic watchdog, the OECD, forecasts that Canada will experience the slowest growth in real GDP per capita among its member countries between now and 2060.

Because of the Trump tariffs and the government's incompetence, workers are losing their jobs. Canadian families are anxious. Communities are shaken. In Haldimand—Norfolk, where I live and in the community I represent, there are thousands of residents who work at the Stelco mill. Stelco is a vital part of our community in terms of jobs, economic activities and business partnerships. Right now, our community is hearing rumours of layoffs, and they are deeply concerned.

The Liberal government had 10 years of power. The current Prime Minister was the economic adviser for a large portion of that time. Liberals wasted the opportunity and resources, and they have left Canada vulnerable as a result.

Conservatives want nation-building projects. We want to see projects accelerated. That is why Conservatives support the intent of this bill. However, the bill takes only baby steps.

I am concerned, and many Canadians are concerned, that the Prime Minister is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He told premiers that they will have a veto on resource project development and pipelines. The government's environment minister has also been directly questioned on the commitment to build pipelines but could not even utter the word “pipelines”. During the election, we had the Prime Minister engaging in doublespeak, saying one thing to one audience in Alberta and saying something completely different in Quebec, so please forgive us Conservatives if we are a bit skeptical that the government's business is not in pipelines. Actually, the bill is an indictment of the Liberals' own anti-resource law.

If we are serious about removing barriers for workers, we need to also give professionals the ability to work across provinces, stop waste and allow international doctors who are qualified to practise rather than driving Ubers. We need access to health care. That is essential, especially in rural communities like Haldimand—Norfolk. We are hearing stories of Canadians waiting for hours in emergency rooms, who are in desperate need of urgent care. More and more we are seeing people dying on wait-lists, unable to get the critical surgeries and treatment they need. Many residents still do not have a family doctor, which means they are not getting timely access to care.

I personally had to intervene in one of these situations and speak to the former immigration minister to help a doctor in Caledonia get paperwork sorted out so that thousands of residents would not be without a family doctor, and so that Dr. Marilyn Robertson in Caledonia could be replaced with a competent doctor from abroad. If this had not happened, many residents would have been left without a family doctor.

There are an extraordinary number of bureaucratic hurdles that people have to go through in order to practise medicine in Canada. The government has missed the opportunity to introduce the Blue Seal standard and get thousands of qualified doctors and nurses working in Canada through passing a sound and rigorous national test.

In conclusion, we, as a nation, have a great and historical opportunity before us. I am full of hope for Canada. We have the potential to be the most prosperous nation on this planet, the freest, the most advanced and the most just nation in the world. That is why Conservatives will always be committed to holding this Liberal government to account and calling for higher standards in service to Canadians. We will support even the small steps to strengthen this nation. Conservatives will keep fighting for a prosperous and sovereign Canada, and we hope the government will do the same.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, the act before us, the one Canadian economy act, seeks to break down internal trade barriers within our beautiful, great country and also advance national infrastructure projects. I am wondering if we can count on the member's support.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I encourage the Liberals to continue stealing our great Conservative ideas.

What is contained in this bill is just baby steps. It shows some initiative, but there is so much more that needs to be done in order to truly break down interprovincial trade barriers. Conservatives encourage the Liberals to take those further steps so that we can get on board.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that I am tepid in supporting this bill, because I have seen, over the last 10 years, major announcements by this Liberal government, yet nothing gets done. I am old enough to remember, during the recent election campaign, when the Prime Minister made a promise, and he said that interprovincial trade barriers would be removed by Canada Day, yet we are dealing with a bill to deal with the removal of interprovincial trade barriers.

I know this hon. member has been here for a long time now. Does she share this same sense of tepidness that I have in terms of this government's ability to actually get things done? Are these just more announcements and more of the same?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives would want to see the Liberals absolutely do more and have shovel-ready projects. It is really unfortunate that we had a promise that there would be an elimination of these interprovincial trade barriers by Canada Day, yet here we are still debating this issue. We would like to see this done at a much faster pace, and we would like to see greater steps. Yes, we need to move beyond this rhetoric and actually get this thing done.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned in her speech that, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister said one thing about oil and gas projects in English for Alberta and another in French for Quebec.

I just want to confirm that she was indeed talking about how, in western Canada, the Prime Minister said in English that he would use his prerogative to authorize projects that he describes as being in the national interest and force them through. Is that actually what he said out west? Also, did he tell Quebeckers that he would respect provincial jurisdiction, especially on environmental matters?

Is that what my colleague was talking about?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we look at both of the statements that were made, they were highly contradictory. Out west, it was, “Yes, we are going to build pipelines. We are going to develop. We are going to have shovel-ready projects.” Then when the Liberals went to Quebec, it was, “No, there will be a veto. If you don't want something coming through this province, you can veto it.” There was a double standard as to what exactly the Prime Minister intends to do with making Canada more internationally competitive and making sure we can have a robust response to these trade barriers.