Debates of June 16th, 2025

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was here in 2017 when the Liberals touted their Canadian Free Trade Agreement, which had more pages of exemptions than it had of things where interprovincial trade barriers were removed.

The Prime Minister is at it again. He says that we will have free trade in Canada by July 1, and now Liberal members are quantifying that by provincial and federal. Would the member say this is just another example of the Liberals saying one thing and doing something completely different, over-promising and under-delivering?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, I would say the Liberals say one thing and then do another thing or take a very long time to achieve anything.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a nation rich in resources, talent and opportunity. From potash to petroleum, from uranium to wheat, our country has what the world needs, yet our potential is being held back, not by people or the land but by federal policies that make it harder to build and grow. As we debate Bill C-5, the so-called building Canada act, we must ask whether this legislation fixes what is broken or merely patches over the cracks.

This bill acknowledges that Canada's regulatory system has become a barrier to progress, but instead of fixing the system for everyone, it offers a shortcut for a chosen few. In my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain, we do not just talk about resource development; we live it. Our oil fields, potash mines and farmers provide food, fuel and fertilizer to Canadians and our global partners. We understand that development must be responsible, but also possible.

This bill claims it would fast-track national interest projects, but what qualifies as national interest remains undefined. Who decides, based on what and for how long? The answers are not in this legislation, and that is part of the problem.

Clause 5 of the bill would allow cabinet to designate certain projects for special treatment, but the criteria are vague, the process is opaque and the project list is not even public. That raises serious questions about transparency, fairness and accountability. What is more, the so-called fast-track powers expire in five years. That is not a solution. That is an admission that the government does not believe in its own regulatory framework. If it did, it would not need exemptions, and that is what this bill is, an exemption. It is not a reform or a replacement, and it would not streamline the system for its investors. It picks winners. It does not restore confidence in Canada's regulatory framework; it dodges it.

This is not how we build national prosperity. This is how we sow regional division, because when some projects leapfrog the process while others languish, people start to lose faith, not just in the system but in the fairness of our country. We have seen what happens when politics trumps policy. Major infrastructure projects are cancelled, pipelines are stalled and billions of dollars in investment are lost. That is not progress; that is paralysis.

Bill C-5 would do nothing to prevent activist litigation or intergovernmental obstruction. There is no mechanism in the bill to protect approved projects from being blocked after the fact and no real incentive for provinces or regulators to speed up their approvals. What is the point of declaring a project in the national interest if we cannot ensure it gets built?

Let us talk about timelines. The government says it wants projects approved within two years, but the bill would not in any way legislate a deadline. There is no guarantee and no enforcement. That means more uncertainty for project proponents. Let us contrast that with the United States, where certain federal energy projects are approved within 30 days. That is what it means to get serious about competitiveness.

Here in Canada, we say we are in a crisis, but we act like we are not. The Minister of Natural Resources himself said there is no investment certainty in Canada, but who created that problem? The Liberals have been in power for nearly a decade. Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and layers of overlapping regulation did not appear overnight. They were built piece by piece by the government.

Now we are told to celebrate not a fix but a workaround. What Conservatives are calling for is simple: to make Canada competitive again. Let us repeal the broken laws, create shovel-ready zones, cap review times to one year, fast-track permitting through a single, reliable process and, yes, use section 92(10) of the Constitution to declare major projects like pipelines and transmission corridors to the general advantage of Canada. That is how we ensure that national interest is not held hostage to provincial politics or activist pressures.

We also need to address labour mobility. We have thousands of foreign-trained doctors, nurses and engineers who could fill shortages all across the country but cannot work due to a patchwork of credentialing rules. A Conservative government would implement a blue seal standard, modelled after the Red Seal for trades, that would allow professionals to practise across Canada if they meet national standards. This bill could have included that. It did not. It is another missed opportunity.

I would like to share a story of a couple I met in Estevan. They run a small oil field service company. They are honest, hard-working and deeply committed to their community. They told me their biggest challenge is not financing or labour; it is uncertainty. They never know when the new rules from Ottawa will change everything. They want to invest, expand and hire, but not if the ground keeps shifting beneath them.

That uncertainty is echoed across this country. It is in mining, forestry, clean energy and even nuclear, where world-leading projects in Saskatchewan remain stuck in regulatory limbo. Bill C-5 offers no assurance that things will get better, only that some projects and some companies might get lucky. Dr. Jack Mintz warned that without regulatory certainty, capital will flow elsewhere, and that is exactly what we are seeing.

Investors are not waiting for us to get our act together. They are putting their money where approvals are predictable, often south of the border, and while Canada stalls, the U.S. moves. While we hold consultations, they build. While we argue over definitions, they approve projects in weeks, not years. We are falling behind, not because of a lack of resources or workers, but because we lack a government willing to make the hard choices.

Let me summarize our concerns. This bill leaves too much power in the hands of cabinet; lacks clear criteria for project selection; has no enforceable timelines; invites legal challenges; offers no protection against future political interference; sunsets in five years, offering no long-term certainty; and picks a few winners instead of fixing the system for all. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a regulatory system that is fast, fair and final. They deserve to know that when a project is approved, it will be built. They deserve leadership that does not just manage decline, but believes in building something greater.

Conservatives will continue to support projects that grow our economy, strengthen our sovereignty and create opportunity for all Canadians. We will work with any party to pursue real reforms, not just symbolic gestures. We will always stand up for the people who power our nation, from Estevan to Arcola, from potash miners to oil field welders, because we believe in their future and we will fight for it.

In Souris—Moose Mountain, we take great pride in being builders. Whether it is potash operations around Rocanville, oil wells of the Bakken formation or the grain and cattle operations that dot the landscape, we are a region that contributes to the economic backbone of this country. However, increasingly, people in my constituency are telling me they feel their efforts are being undercut by policy decisions made in Ottawa that fail to reflect the reality on the ground. They ask me this: Why does it take years to approve something that should be straightforward? Why are we losing investment to the United States and elsewhere when we have the resources and expertise to get things done here? Why does the government keep announcing grand frameworks that never seem to translate into shovels in the ground or jobs in our communities?

Bill C-5 should have been the answer to those questions, but it is not. Instead, it is a narrowly tailored mechanism that selects a few special projects for acceleration without addressing the fundamental problems that hold the rest of the country back. It creates a two-tier system: one for the politically favoured and one for everyone else.

What Canada needs is a one-tier system that works for all, for everyone in every region. We need a system that respects the regulatory rigour that our environment and indigenous people deserve, but one that does so in a way that is efficient, transparent and accountable. We need to stop creating special lanes and start fixing the entire road.

Our caucus has put forward common-sense proposals that would accomplish exactly that: a one-year cap on project approvals, a six-month fast-track option for strategic projects, transparent national standards that recognize provincial authority, and the repeal of burdensome laws, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that have made it nearly impossible to build anything of consequence. In short, we want Canada to be a country where great ideas get built, where workers get hired and where prosperity is not an accident, but is the result of deliberate, focused policy choices that support growth rather than stifle it.

It is not about ideology; it is about practicality. A strong resource sector helps pay for hospitals, schools, roads and the public services we rely on across the country. It supports jobs in urban and rural communities alike. When done right, it positions Canada as a responsible leader in global energy and environmental standards. Canadians do not just want a government that points at a few shiny projects and says, “Look what we did”; they want a government that builds a system that works reliably and consistently for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I do not necessarily agree with them, but I agree that the Conservative Party has recognized the value of this legislation. It was part of the Prime Minister's election platform, and we very much appreciate that the Conservatives voted for us to get it passed by Friday. I think that is a very good thing.

We hear a lot of criticism coming from the Conservatives. Does the member have any specific amendment he would like to see that he believes would improve the legislation?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to see Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 repealed.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent 10 years building walls around the Canadian economy, and Conservatives have been asking them to tear them down. The Liberals have thrown Bill C-5 as a sort of rope ladder over the walls, and the Conservatives vote for it. The Liberals' take from this, apparently, is that if we voted for the rope ladder, we must love the walls. I am wondering if the member could explain to the Liberals why we would vote for the rope ladder and still not like the walls.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things wrong with Bill C-5, but as Conservatives, we are just so happy the Liberals are finally doing something about anything. We have spent so many years with them stopping every single project that was proposed in this country. It is basically like a non-tariff trade barrier imposed on our own industries right here in Canada because of our federal laws. This is something that has to stop, but we are glad to see they are actually trying to get at least something done.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have worked together, so I am glad to see him in this place. I know he has served at the provincial level, and it is exciting to be able to work with him at the federal level. We were on the tourism file together, so I know he is a champion for his province, and I try to fight for Ontario as the proud member of Parliament for the riding of Waterloo.

As I listen to the member's speech, I hear his concerns. I think it is important we get this legislation advanced, even if it is only a step, as the Conservatives are saying, in the right direction. I do think another step will be to ensure provinces are doing their part to ensure each of our provinces is able to showcase the best of our products across the country. I know there is stuff in Saskatchewan that Ontario would love, and I am sure vice versa.

Will the member be working with the provincial government, especially with his provincial experience, to ensure there are no barriers in Canada by Canada Day?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, just by the structure of this bill, there is no chance there will be no trade barriers by Canada Day in interprovincial trade. I had the privilege of working on the CFTA with the members opposite. Basically, we got a whole bunch of exemptions, put them together in a package and called it a Canadian internal free trade agreement. This is something the Conservatives are not looking to repeat. We want free trade for all, for everyone. It would unleash our economies and make Canada one of the most powerful countries we could ever imagine.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he is aware of the dealings that took place between the Liberals and the Conservatives prior to the vote on Bill C‑5.

What did the Conservatives have to hand over to the Liberals to convince them to adopt their game plan, their agenda? What did the Liberals give the Conservatives in exchange for their support of this gag order that is interfering with democracy? These are the questions that keep me awake at night.

We exactly was said? Why are Quebec and Canada in this situation? How much did it cost?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives believe energy projects in this country that are responsibly developed and follow the regulations and rules should be allowed to go forward. We can power our economy. We can use that money to invest in our schools, hospitals and roads, and make Canada one of the strongest countries in the G7, if not the strongest country in the G7. I know the Conservatives have a lot of disagreements with the Liberals on this, but one thing I can say for sure is that Conservatives want to see Canada prosper.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

I am a little confused today. I am a new MP, and I naively thought that the debates in the House were meant to advance better policies for all Quebeckers and Canadians. I have come to realize that, unfortunately, they are instead being used as an opportunity to doggedly criticize everything the government puts forward. Over here, we have Conservatives saying that the bill does not go far enough. They want carte blanche. Over there, we have Bloc members saying that we are going too far and that we, the Liberals, are the ones who want carte blanche. Maybe what that really means is that we have hit the sweet spot for getting projects of national interest off the ground while staying on track to meet our climate targets and fulfill our commitment and obligations to indigenous peoples.

What is clear is that Canada must assert itself as a confident and independent nation that is capable of building, producing and trading on its own terms. The trade actions taken by our closest partner have made it clear that our economic prosperity cannot depend on another country's decisions. We are at a critical juncture that will determine the economic future of our children and grandchildren. Now is the time to harness the potential of Canada's rich natural resources, industrial innovation and internal trade, and to invest in the infrastructure that we need to move forward. Now is the time to move forward with projects of national interest that will drive economic transformation.

We are ready to work with provincial, territorial, municipal and indigenous partners to eliminate delays and make responsible decisions. Bill C‑5 will help get projects built that will produce and transport energy, goods and services from coast to coast to coast. These projects will focus on infrastructure to facilitate trade and get goods and services to the people who need them.

For example, by speeding up project approvals, the legislation would help Canadian farmers who have state‑of‑the‑art equipment to irrigate their fields but lack the access roads and infrastructure needed to get their agricultural products to market. It will also help streamline regulatory processes and cut costs, which will leave more money in the pockets of hard‑working Canadian families, workers and communities. This is why we were elected: to make life more affordable.

Investing in infrastructure that facilitates trade and supports the movement of people and goods across Canada is good economic policy. That is why we have already invested in the national trade corridors fund, a $2.3‑billion fund to support infrastructure projects that improve the flow of goods and people within Canada and to international markets. It has already funded 81 projects and supported trade-enabling infrastructure projects, including access roads, railways, airports and ports, to ease bottlenecks and create more efficient and fluid trade corridors.

We also created the Canada public transit fund, which has an annual budget of $3 billion. These investments support the creation of transit-oriented communities to help attract investment, encourage housing construction near employment hubs and reduce traffic congestion. This can improve the flow of goods in and out of urban centres, particularly near ports, rail terminals and industrial areas. By supporting the development and modernization of public transit systems, this fund is helping to increase labour mobility and attract workers to urban centres, particularly to give them access to jobs in the logistics and service manufacturing sectors, promote trade, and contribute to economic growth.

There has never been a better time to diversify Canada's trade. As we have seen, we need to be able to rely on trustworthy partners. We need to be able to diversify our exports. Our entrepreneurs and businesses have been trying to do so for a long time, and they are finding it difficult. We all need to work together to help them out. The federal government's export diversification strategy already aims to expand Canada's reach by increasing overseas exports by 50% this year.

With a total of 15 free trade agreements with 49 countries, 36 foreign investment promotion and protection agreements and many other negotiations under way around the world, we are well positioned to strengthen our trade alliances and partnerships and create new ones to usher in a new era of economic growth and prosperity for Canadians.

Canada needs to build new critical infrastructure at a pace not seen in generations. We need to support the highways, railways, ports and airports that will power our economy. We need to support our farmers and get our agricultural products to market. We need to facilitate the flow of people, lumber and other goods while catalyzing the housing industry and building more homes faster. We also need to support Canada's many key industries, including both clean and conventional energy, and connect them to global markets. We did not ask to withdraw from our partnership with the United States, but the world is changing rapidly in the face of shifting geopolitics. If we want to be at the forefront, we need to build faster, smarter and with greater certainty. By becoming our own best ally, we can strengthen our national sovereignty and build the strongest economy in the G7.

Bill C-5 will let us seize the opportunity before us. It will let us invest in critical trade-related infrastructure that makes it easier for goods and people to move within Canada. It will streamline regulatory processes to speed up project approvals and reduce duplication and costs. It will improve trade corridors to diversify and strengthen Canada's trade relationships. It will also support labour mobility so that skilled workers can go where they are needed the most. That is what creating one Canadian economy is all about.

To grasp this opportunity, we need to use every tool at our disposal. Not only do we have everything the world needs, we have everything the world wants: Apart from our natural resources, the world needs Canadian values. These are not the values of a single party, but the values of Canadians and Quebeckers. These are the values at the core of Bill C‑5. We are a resilient people, unafraid of big projects. For proof, look anywhere in Canada, from Labrador to Nunavut to British Columbia.

This is a time to be proud. The fact is, Quebeckers and Canadians have spoken, and they are ready. They are ready for Canada to take its rightful place. They are ready to take charge and achieve great things. Bill C-5 offers our generation a unique opportunity to transform 13 economies into a single Canadian economy and make Canada the strongest economy in the G7. I truly hope that we can put partisanship aside, put the sound bites aside and get down to the real work of passing this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. We are talking about trade corridors within Canada, we are talking about 13 provinces and we are talking about indigenous peoples. How will the government be able to do all that while ensuring that it respects the laws of each of the provinces and, above all, the rights of indigenous peoples?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. Consensus is at the heart of the criteria being put forward in this bill. I could go over the criteria, but I do not want to take up all my time.

The bill recognizes that meaningful partnership and consultation with indigenous peoples are essential to creating projects of national interest while maintaining strong environmental protections and advancing our climate goals.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about consensus. When I read Bill C-5 and then I see what the Prime Minister has said publicly, that each provincial premier will be able to have an effective veto, that to me does not say one national economy. It actually enshrines 13 different economies, based on the preferences of each premier.

Can the member opposite simply comment on the consensus part being a complete contradiction to the whole aim of the legislation for one national economy?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would really encourage my colleague to go back and read the project. Consensus is at the heart of the criteria that have been put forward. The premiers of all the provinces and territories have met. There has never been, in recent history, such collaboration among provinces and territories on this, and consensus on what needs to be put forward. The premiers are representing the citizens of their provinces and their territories, and consensus is at the heart of the project.

My colleague can read the five criteria that are in the project: reinforcement of autonomy, resilience and security; clear economic advantages; ability to be executed; priority for indigenous people; and being in line with our commitments on climate neutrality.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her election.

I listened to her speech and she seems enthusiastic about this bill. However, I would like to know what she thinks about the fact that her leader decided on many of the measures without adopting a budget. The defence budget is going up, spending is going up and taxes are going down, which seems somewhat inconsistent.

What is more, with Bill C-5, the Prime Minister is giving himself quite a few powers. He can decide what projects are of national interest and will not be subject to the applicable rules and criteria. All this authoritarianism is being implemented under a gag order without the bill being studied in committee, without us being able to hear from experts and study this bill.

I wonder what my colleague thinks of that, as a new member in the House of Commons. Does she think this is the right way to manage the affairs of a so-called democratic country?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I am disappointed that people keep repeating the same slogans about the closure motion. Bill C-5 very clearly indicates that for all projects, there will be consultations with the provinces and indigenous peoples, that we will work together to build consensus and that it is projects of national interest that will be implemented.

I think that Quebeckers and Canadians are looking forward to being proud of their country and seeing us move forward and develop projects. Quebeckers are not afraid of major projects. Just look at all the big dams they have built in the past few decades to be a leader in green energy and in contributing their efforts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C‑5, the one Canadian economy act. This bill will enable us to remove federal barriers to the internal flow of goods and services and to labour mobility, while continuing to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians, their social and economic well-being and the environment. It will also help advance nation-building projects to produce and connect energy, goods and services across Canada's vast land mass and in global markets. This bill will help Canada become the strongest economy in the G7 and a global energy superpower.

To my mind, what defines an exceptional leader is first and foremost their ability to turn every crisis into an opportunity. With Bill C‑5, our Prime Minister is showing that he is of the same calibre as the people who built our country. The bill before us lays the foundation for our government's strategy, not only to address the threats posed by our neighbour to the south, but also to lead the way in building the Canadian economy of the future. That is why I will be supporting this bill.

No one in Canada wanted a trade war with the Americans, but that is where we are right now. Fortunately, with this bill, our government is demonstrating that it can turn this crisis into an opportunity. The people of Beauport—Limoilou and people across Canada expect their government to take swift and ambitious action to address the threats we are facing. No one has ever won a war, trade or otherwise, by improvising. What this bill proposes is a return to boldness.

Over the decades, we have come to believe that we have to make choices when it comes to our economic development and major projects. We could build well or build quickly. Over time, we have unfortunately sacrificed our efficiency and our boldness. It is important not to place all the blame on the current crisis or on the policies of our neighbour to the south. Canada built great things in the past, but it seems as though we have forgotten how to do so in recent decades.

In the United States, thinker Ezra Klein has just published Abundance, a book that is making waves and that offers solutions to help nations learn how to build effectively again. Across much of the western world, projects that took a few months to put together some decades ago are now taking years to get off the ground. In Canada, we can no longer afford to be overly cautious in the face of Trump's threats. I am proud that our government is taking action by proposing such a paradigm shift. This is a shift in mindset that goes far beyond partisan lines.

More than 60 years ago, we built the St. Lawrence Seaway in just a few years. It was a huge public infrastructure project that required an investment that only the Government of Canada could make. The St. Lawrence Seaway was not an expense; it was an investment. To this day, dozens of ships bound for or departing from the Great Lakes, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto or Montreal pass my riding every week. Over the decades, they have created so much wealth that the initial cost of the St. Lawrence Seaway now seems like a pittance in comparison. This is exactly the kind of major project that Bill C‑5 seeks to encourage. In response to Trump's threats, we will create economic activity by investing in projects like the St. Lawrence Seaway. We will create infrastructure that requires such significant investment that government commitment is virtually essential to its construction. What is more, this infrastructure will provide future generations with a stronger and more resilient economy.

The list of projects may be short, but the projects in question will be anything but minor. These will be projects that have the potential to truly redefine our nation's economic future in a lasting way. A trade war is a major threat to any economy but, on top of that, the current tariffs are hitting us at a time when the Canadian economy is fragile.

That is what the bill's second part, which is inseparable from building major projects, is going to address. It deals with removing trade barriers between provinces. Reducing interprovincial trade barriers and creating one economy out of 13 will have a significant impact on something that experts and economists are deeply concerned about: Canadian productivity.

That is why I will be supporting this bill. In 2022, Canadians produced 71% of what Americans did per hour. That productivity gap has widening for decades. It was an issue before the pandemic and Donald Trump's return. Now, I think it is a genuine national emergency. I will support this bill because it is a step in the right direction to address our major productivity problem. By removing interprovincial trade barriers, the bill will increase Canadian productivity by 7%. As I said earlier, by encouraging interprovincial trade, this bill is a key tool for fighting the President's tariffs, as well as creating a stronger and more resilient economy.

This bill is at the heart of what our Prime Minister promised Canadians during the election. We are walking the talk, as they say. We promised to find the opportunities hidden in the current crisis, and with this bill, the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy is giving us the tools to find the gold nuggets hidden in the mud of the trade war with the U.S. Those nuggets will make our economy stronger for future generations.

I also want to take this opportunity to highlight the exceptional work the Prime Minister is currently doing with provincial premiers and indigenous leaders. The government does not want to waste any time, but that does not mean it is willing to forego co-operation with the provinces and first peoples. Together, we will build the Canada of tomorrow. Together, we will build a stronger Canada.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for recognizing the consequences of bad Liberal policy, like low Canadian productivity, which is at 71% of that of the United States.

As part of Bill C-5, the Prime Minister said that only projects that are low-carbon or decarbonized would be approved. Canada imports about 500,000 barrels of oil from the United States, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria a year. Would those imports be under the auspices of the same new decarbonized or low-carbon rules and regulations that would be put on Canadian energy projects?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I worked in banking for over 20 years and at the chamber of commerce for four years. Business people often asked us why the government would pit projects against each other. Why are environmental projects and economic development projects being pitted against each other? Why not combine them?

Surveys have been conducted over the years and have found that people want projects to be carried out collaboratively. That is what the Prime Minister is proposing today with respect to the sustainable economy. It is for Canada and for Canada's economic future. Let us stop pitting our projects against one another and let us combine them instead.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. He is also new to the House, and I would like to have his somewhat novice, if I may put it that way, point of view on the parliamentary debates.

He says that his leader walks the talk. That suggests that what his leader is doing right now is something that he previously announced. I never saw anything in the Liberal platform about the Liberals promising to adopt the legislation they wanted, when they wanted it and how they wanted it, and that if the other parliamentarians disagreed, they would be forced into it through a closure motion. I did not see that anywhere, but I suspect that if my colleague is telling us that, then it is because he did.

I would like him to tell me where he saw that so that I can read it and refer to it. This could be useful in a future election, to properly inform the electorate.

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

Mr. Speaker, what our Prime Minister promised during the election campaign was to make fast decisions and act quickly. That is what people expect. There is a time for talk, and a time for action. We need to be able to get past this crisis with the Americans and provide businesses with predictability. The difficulty facing businesses right now is that nothing is predictable when it comes to investments.

The Canadian government is saying that not only is it going to invest, but that businesses can invest too. It is showing them the way forward. This is what business people and businesses need, and the government is showing them the way.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague. The bill is full of very concrete, very positive measures.

Can my colleague tell us about two things that he thinks are essential and should be prioritized? Can he tell us about two things that he finds interesting and would like to highlight for the House?