Debates of June 16th, 2025

One Canadian Economy Act

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it happens.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C‑5, I think we should all be inspired by La Fontaine's fable, The Tortoise and the Hare. The federal government is behaving like the hare; it wants to make everything happen fast. It is not taking the time to do things properly. It wants to act right now and thinks everything is a matter of life and death. That is just not the case. The tortoise, in contrast, moves slowly. It analyzes everything. It thinks, it ponders and it assesses the situation. It makes sure to do its job properly and it gets to the finish line on time. “To win a race, the swiftness of a dart availeth not without a timely start.”

Here in the House, we are doing the exact opposite of what that famous fable teaches us. Bill C‑5 is the top of a slippery slope. People invoke the U.S. President every day to justify the need for haste. The President used the national interest as a pretext to impose tariffs. The response proposed in this legislation is for the government to have essentially the same powers. Yes, a project of national interest will make it possible to override federal laws, and especially the laws of Quebec and the Canadian provinces. It is the Canadian version of “drill, baby, drill”.

I come from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, a mining region. Laws and regulations exist for a reason. The number of abandoned mining sites in our area is unbelievable. Yes, in the past, the mining industry was a bit careless. Things have changed since then because attitudes have changed, but also because Quebec has passed strong environmental laws. According to Janique Lambert, Quebec's commissioner of sustainable development, there are currently more than 36 former mining sites that will cost close to $600 million to remediate.

As I said, the mining industry has changed. It is a lot more responsible now. For example, to avoid the mistakes of the past, financial guarantees are provided for the redevelopment and remediation of mining sites. Innovative technologies, including those used by businesses in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, also make it possible to do better.

Take, for example, the Dumont Nickel project, which has had an agreement with the Abitibiwinni First Nation since 2007. The Dumont Nickel project will begin in the next year. This proves that agreements can be reached with first nations when they are involved in discussions from the start of a project.

In no way does this bill respect this important philosophy, because the government's bill is fundamentally flawed. Ottawa is going to commit everyone to major projects that will take years to complete, with lifespans measured in decades, meaning future generations will be involved. That is precisely why it is necessary to act like the tortoise. We need to identify the subtleties and provide answers. We must ensure that our bills respond to what we want. Do we want mining permits to be issued more quickly? Yes, but not by sacrificing key aspects and the necessary environmental assessments. The environmental studies that Quebec requires could very well be the “one review”. The Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement is fully qualified to do this.

When the time comes to make a decision on a project, Quebec must always have the last word on its own projects. Proposed section 21 in Bill C‑5 even gives the federal government the right to issue an order to exempt a proponent from the application of any law. It makes no sense. The government will sacrifice everything just to make things go faster. This is like back when big business used to make the government follow its rules. That is exactly how this government is behaving toward first nations. Enough talk; now, sign here.

In drafting this bill, the government fulfilled none of its obligations to first nations. Sending a short letter asking for input in the form of a two- or three-page letter within five or seven days does not count as consultation. Consultation is not just ticking a box. Consultation means meeting with people, sitting down, listening, discussing problems and finding solutions. Consultation does not mean agreeing on everything. It means having a real, ongoing dialogue.

Furthermore, while the federal government recognizes the provinces to some extent—I am being generous—the rights of first nations should be given more consideration. This bill violates the most basic criteria of their rights.

My presence on the ground among the first nations stems from an unequivocal desire to work on reconciliation and ensure that our indigenous communities have the resources to fulfill their ambitions. Bill C‑5 is a serious barrier to reconciliation.

Taking their interests into account means more than just writing “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples” in a bill, especially since this bill targets 13 laws and seven regulations that seek to protect the environment, fauna and flora.

One of these laws is the Indian Act. Among first nations, there are certain principles that guide chiefs and indigenous communities in considering future generations. They think about the next seven generations. That is why, among first nations, the turtle is the symbol of the Earth's creation. In addition to representing America in its shape, it is also a symbol of prudence and longevity.

Today, I went to the Senate to hear what Grand Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak had to say. She said that many of her colleagues could not be there today, as some were dealing with forest fires. She recommends slowing down, taking the summer, getting out and talking to people, talking to Canadians and talking to first nations. First nations know how it feels to have Trump at their borders. She recommends not having Trump-like policies here, but rather taking our time and doing things properly.

Later, she recommended taking the summer, taking the fall, taking the time to go through this bill carefully, talk through it and talk with first nations about it. Nothing is off the table. First nations are thinking about it already. They have had some conversations, but the grand chief was not in a position to tell us what those were. The chiefs will talk it over and decide on a position. She said that we have an opportunity to do things differently and to work together, and she recommended getting everyone to the table.

This is a heartfelt cry from the national chief of the first nations. Her position is shared by the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, AFNQL, which strongly and unequivocally opposes Bill C‑5.

This is a bill that, under the guise of reducing red tape and building the nation, threatens the very foundations of Canada's constitutional order, the rights of first nations and their shared journey toward reconciliation. The obligation to consult and accommodate first nations is not a procedural hurdle. It is not an inconvenience to be dealt with or a box to be checked off. It is a constitutional imperative that is recognized and guaranteed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It has been repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and reaffirmed in Canada's commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill does not demonstrate legislative reconciliation. It demonstrates indifference.

In her appearance before the Senate earlier, Julie McGregor, the legal counsel for the Assembly of First Nations, raised a very interesting point. She said that the duty to consult and the standard of free and informed consent are not operationalized in Bill C‑5. It is interpretive, not included in a concrete way. With more consultation, it would be possible to meet those requirements. Amendments would be required, but we did not take the time to consult first nations. Consultation comes down to consulting rights holders about how to respect wildlife and the hunting and fishing rights that will be affected by the project. That would be the essence of the consultation. Rights holders should determine who should be consulted. That is meaningful consultation.

It is a matter of trusting others. I say that because in the meantime, we are seeing the provincial legislative assemblies mobilize the first nations, as though there were agreements in the different provinces of Canada. B.C.'s Bill 15, Ontario's Bill 5, Nova Scotia's Bill 6 and Quebec's bills 67 and 97 all include the duty to consult indigenous peoples.

Right now, there is a movement afoot to refuse to respect first nations' rights, which will likely create a crisis in Canada. Indigenous leaders in Quebec spoke out against an act to strip them of their land. AFNQL Chief Francis Verreault-Paul says we need to protect biodiversity and our way of life. Respecting the ancestral rights of first nations is not optional for governments. Chiefs in Ontario have made it clear that they completely reject Bill C‑5. They maintain and defend their position, as Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict mentioned. First nations rights holders must be at the table and the government must uphold its constitutional and treaty obligations.

We are headed for a crisis that, unfortunately, will probably not be resolved today, but before the courts, unless we listen to first nations—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could elaborate on the fact that, for the first time in a very long time, indigenous people will finally be allowed to participate in projects, to be part of projects and therefore be able to work on the very design and development of these projects, as well as benefit economically from them.

I would like the member to comment on that, because this is new. Bill C-5 includes this promise of a much brighter future for indigenous peoples.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what the member for La Prairie—Atateken just said demonstrates a flagrant lack of respect for first nations.

The whole problem with this government is that it promises consultations at a later date. First nations are being asked to sign everything over, and then the government will walk away. It wants to take away first nations' established rights and then trample on them. I am taking a stand against this kind of behaviour on behalf of first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech.

The last Liberal questioner raised the issue of first nations consultations and made it sound like the Liberal government has that all covered. It has decided to appoint an advisory board. Does the member share my wonder as to why the government makes no legal reference to this advisory committee or panel in Bill C-5, in legislation? It seems the government wants to say that consultations are part of the law, yet it does not include any reference to the advisory committee it has put together.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, this is the same fundamental problem. Indigenous peoples are being put in a box. They get offered something so that it can be said that they were given a little sandbox to play in. They will then be told that they have been consulted.

This is not reconciliation. This is not ongoing dialogue with first nations. Action needs to be taken right from the start. The way that this government is acting is irresponsible.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a brilliant presentation. I would like him to come back to the notion of free, prior and informed consent by first nations.

The government keeps saying that it is going to consult with first nations, but the bill only mentions the word “consultation”.

Can my hon. colleague help the government understand the difference between consultation and obtaining free, prior and informed consent?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, free, prior and informed consent is given by the person in question. It is not something that is imposed on someone else. Basically, it is when the person feels ready to give it, because they have the sovereignty to make the decision and to say when they feel ready to give free, prior and informed consent.

It is not up to Parliament to dictate when first nations feel ready to do so. This is where the nuance lies. It must be done through ongoing dialogue, while giving the other party time to get ready to give their consent. Otherwise, it is what we would call a violation of rights.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be clear, simple and short. Are the Bloc Québécois and the opposition members prepared to work over the summer to make the necessary and required changes to Bill C-5?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question and her sincere interest in this subject. Of course I would like that. The work will continue, because we need to have this ongoing dialogue.

Unfortunately, if Bill C-5 is passed as quickly as is planned, the repercussions of this bill will be dealt with in the courts for the next few years, if not decades.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my speech this evening is dedicated to all those we meet on the campaign trail who tell us that their vote does not matter and will not make a difference. We are here to tell them that a solemn election promise does matter.

On the very first page of our election platform, we spoke about the need to refocus the Canadian economy. We are here tonight for the second reading of this bill to assure people that their vote counts. Once elected, a government fulfills its promises. We are here to respond to this heartfelt plea from all Canadians, including the Gatineau constituents whom I have the honour of representing here in the House. We are here to tell them that their vote counts. Indeed, we are here in the House, driven by a sense of urgency and a desire to serve and to fulfill our promises.

Canadians gave this new government a clear and urgent mandate: to build a stronger Canada and an economy that works for everyone. They sent us here to eliminate barriers, unlock opportunities and deliver the results that matter in their daily lives. This is exactly what we are doing.

Just days after this Parliament was convened, we introduced Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, because we are in a period of economic uncertainty. People are worried. Canadians cannot afford inaction.

This bill aims to remove barriers that are holding our country back. It aims to build a Canada that works better together. It aims to deliver real, tangible benefits to Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian communities.

For too long, our economy has been divided, not by ability and ambition but by artificial borders and outdated rules. The one Canadian economy act would address this directly. First, it would remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility. It would make it easier for businesses to operate across the country with no more needless duplication of approvals, no more inconsistencies that raise costs and delay investment. A company in one province will have a clearer, faster pathway to sell its goods and services in another, and the same goes for workers.

In the House, we hear all too many voices that do not recognize the workers having trouble getting licensed in one province or another. Right now, a certified professional in one province may still have to go through redundant processes just to work in another. This slows down hiring, frustrates skilled Canadians and limits where people can go to find opportunity. The one Canadian economy act would help break those barriers down. By facilitating greater coordination across jurisdictions, we will move closer to a truly national labour market, one where people can take their skills where they are needed without unnecessary red tape.

Second, this bill would allow for faster completion of large-scale projects, infrastructure projects that are essential for nation building, projects that support clean energy, conventional energy, housing, transportation—the backbone of Canada's future economy.

Through the building Canada act, this bill will simplify federal review and approval processes for major infrastructure projects. It will encourage coordination, reduce duplication and pave the way for faster and more efficient decisions.

I want to be clear. This will not come at the expense of environmental protection, indigenous rights or public consultation. We will continue to honour our responsibilities. However, we must also recognize that we cannot meet the urgent needs of Canadians if the processes are overly slow. This bill ensures that we are efficient and in line with our shared priorities.

This bill would deliver what Canadians expect from their government: action, ambition and collaboration. We are not here to talk about why things are difficult. We are here to remove the barriers and get things done.

Make no mistake that the barriers we are targeting come at a real cost: a cost in productivity, a cost in jobs and a cost in confidence. The reality is, Canada has some of the most fragmented internal economic rules in the industrialized world. We make it easier, in some cases, for goods to move across international borders than between our own provinces. That is not only inefficient, but it is irrational.

The Senate, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, economists, chambers of commerce and unions have all pointed to the significant ongoing costs of internal trade barriers. That is billions of dollars in economic activity lost every single year. That is billions of dollars that could be invested in growth, in clean energy, in housing and in innovation. We can no longer afford to leave that opportunity on the table.

This bill respects provincial jurisdiction. It represents a partnership, but it is also clear and defines a national understanding: This country's economy must function as what it is, one Canada.

We are introducing this legislation with urgency because the moment demands it. We are facing labour shortages across sectors such as construction, health care and transportation. No one's riding is immune. There are also the skilled trades. We are facing a growing demand for infrastructure, and we are facing a global economy that is moving fast, with countries investing heavily in supply chains, clean energy and productivity. Canada cannot afford to be slow. We must match our ambition with action, and that is exactly what this bill represents.

This bill is also based on optimism, on the belief that Canada works better when we work together. We believe in a country where people are free to build a life, a business and a future without being held back by useless barriers. We believe in a country where provinces and territories work together for economic growth rather than competing with each other through unnecessary duplication. We believe in a country where governments rise to the challenge, recognize the moment and act with determination. That is what we are doing today.

We have all heard people say that some projects will never see the light of day, that they cannot be completed because of excessive bureaucracy and regulations. The various levels of government are often criticized for not communicating enough with each other. This bill is a solemn and very effective response to those criticisms. It allows us to dream.

The other day, I said that a project like the one in James Bay would never have been thought possible. The same goes for Expo 67 and the construction of the Montreal metro. Even building a bridge across the Northumberland Strait to Prince Edward Island would seem out of reach. We have lost the ability to dream. This bill rekindles that ambition. It gives Canadians the opportunity to dream again.

Before this House rises for the summer, we are asking Parliament to give this legislation the urgent attention it deserves. We want to give Canadians back the possibility of dreaming to build and dreaming to build bigger. We want to debate this bill, we want to examine this bill, and yes, we want to vote on this bill.

In the election campaign, our leader said it is time to build. We truly believe that it is Canada's time. It is time to rid ourselves of these needless delays, bureaucracies and rules. It is time to get our ambition and strap it on to meet the needs of this new economic era. Canadians are counting on us to move forward, not stand still. The one Canadian economy act is a win for people, for the Canadian economy, for Canadian workers, for Canadian investment and for Canadian unity.

Long live Canada.

Let us get this work done.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill, in part 1, sweepingly replaces multiple ministers in multiple departments and multiple quasi-judicial entities with a single minister. In clause 6, it says, “The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a member of the King’s Privy Council for Canada as the Minister for the purposes of this Act.”

Can the minister tell the House who the minister responsible for this act would be?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that we—

[An hon. member]

You do not know?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Manitoba seems very exuberant this evening.

What I will tell him is that this bill is animated by a single spirit to streamline these approvals and make sure that we have the ability to dream big in this country, to take on major national projects that can transform our economy and to get rid of these needless overlaps and duplications, whether they be between jurisdictions or inside jurisdictions. That is why a minister is clearly designated in this act for the purpose of shepherding these major projects across the line.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I get the impression that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons dreams of the same Canada as Pierre Poilievre.

If the past is any indication, it is all fine and good to say that regulations are what slows projects down, but the truth is that no proponent wants to pay for oil and gas infrastructure. The last oil sector project was the Trans Mountain expansion. The government got taken for $34 billion.

I would like to hear the government House leader tell us whether public money will be invested in oil or gas infrastructure.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, we have invested heavily in the transition to renewable energy. Every province has success stories to tell, including Quebec. We can be very proud of that.

We Quebeckers can be proud of our green record thanks to people like Robert Bourassa, who dreamed big and had ambitions for Quebec. That is the same ambition that we are trying to harness so we can leave our children and grandchildren an awe-inspiring, ambitious Quebec. The days of a small Quebec are over.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great speech that captured the spirit of Canadians who sent us to the House to make sure that we deliver on some of the most important key things. The member mentioned labour, and I know that he was Minister of Labour at one point. He went across the country talking to workers, so he actually understands the importance of removing these barriers for workers.

Maybe the member wants to expand on the benefits of removing these internal barriers across the country and the benefit that would have on workers, not just in his riding, but across Canada, in all our ridings, as well.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the stories. Whether they be in Newfoundland or in any part of our country, there are workers who want to take their skills and make them portable so they can go to another place. That is why we put in place, for example, the labour mobility tax deduction, so that workers could take their skills more easily and be compensated, just like any white-collar worker would be paid his or her moving expenses for moving to find opportunity in another location. However, the largest frustration is among those who have a Red Seal, who have their ticket, and want to be able to practise their skilled trade from one province to the next but could not get through the red tape and the hassles. We would take that away.

The federal government is showing leadership, and so are provinces. We are going to get it done for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to have free trade in Canada by Canada Day. He also promised that all federal and provincial trade barriers would be gone. That raises the question of whether a nurse from British Columbia would be able to work in Ontario, after this legislation is passed, without re-accreditation?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give credit where credit is due to Doug Ford. Maybe my hon. friend should call him someday. We talk to him regularly, and he has put in place a bill that ensures there is reciprocity for any province that wants to pick up the challenge of these barriers to working. Doug Ford will tell the member if he calls him that the work has been done.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on your appointment to your position as well. It is great to see you in the chair.

Allow me, as well, to thank the great people of northwestern Ontario for sending me back to serve a third term in Parliament. This is my first opportunity to rise and give a full speech in the new Parliament. It remains a distinct honour and privilege to represent the people of Kenora—Kiiwetinoong in the House of Commons.

I do not have time to list everyone, but I will briefly thank my family, the volunteers, the campaign team and all the people who put in the time and effort to knock on doors, put up signs and do all the work to ensure that we had a successful outcome and that I could be back serving the people of northwestern Ontario.

To the matter at hand, Bill C-5, I would like to focus more specifically on the building Canada act within Bill C-5. Of course, it has been mentioned throughout the debate that it would require a new major projects office to render decisions within a two-year timeline. This is a good step. I am personally happy to see the government finally moving in this direction, but it is interesting to note that after 10 years of the Liberal government, we see it finally recognizing that things are not moving quickly enough and that major projects are being stalled across the country. I truly believe that, in bringing forward this legislation, the government is admitting to 10 years of failure, 10 years of roadblocks, 10 years of red tape and bureaucracy that have stalled projects, particularly when it comes to mining.

The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has admitted that it does take too long to get a mine approved in Canada. It is incredible to hear him say that. It is welcome news to hear him say that, to some extent, but again, the Liberal government has to recognize who has been in power and who is responsible for the fact that it takes too long to build a mine in Canada.

Today, the Mining Association of Canada, for that matter, notes that it takes 15 years, on average, to get a mine approved in Canada. I have seen other estimates that are higher, but the Mining Association of Canada says it takes 15 years. Obviously, that is an incredibly difficult situation for any investor, any proponent who wants to invest in our country, knowing that they are staring at, potentially, a 15-year or longer timeline.

This is of important note because Canada is, of course, a top mineral and resource producer. Resource development is critical to our economy, and not just to the great jobs it provides for people across northwestern Ontario and across all of Canada, the livelihoods and the paycheques that put food on tables, that put gas in the gas tanks of vehicles and that ensure that people can have the life they want to succeed and be prosperous. Mineral development is critical to our economic independence, truly now more than ever, coming out of the lost Liberal decade. It is important that we get our critical minerals to market. Over that decade, we have seen roadblocks, barriers and red tape, and now we have the worst growth in the G7.

The Liberals, obviously, talked a good game in the election. They said that it is time to build. They said a lot of the things that we have been saying for 10-plus years, and it is now time for them to step up and put it into action. A lot of Canadians want to be fair and want to give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe, but they really have a hard time believing that the Liberal government, after all it has done for 10 years, is actually going to step up to the plate and get our critical minerals developed.

The world needs more Canadian minerals. The International Energy Agency says that the demand for clean energy will require at least 71% more critical minerals than are currently being produced globally. In Canada, according to the Mining Association of Canada, many minerals are not even being produced at the level they were a decade ago. The demand is going up, and our production is going down. Who is stepping up to fill the void? It is other countries, such as China, where there are not as strong environmental regulations and not as strong protections for labour and for jobs. It is other countries, dictatorships, that are stepping up to fill the void that Canada is leaving behind.

I mentioned the economic independence angle of this as well. With the threats from the United States, the uncertainty from the United States that has been produced, now more than ever we know we have to move forward with these developments so we can bring home the paycheques, the wealth and the security to our own country.

These delays and red tape have held back the industry in Canada. There are actually 42 projects that are under federal assessment right now; 22 pertain to mining, nine are for transportation and four are in oil and gas. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has said there is a lack of investment certainty. Well, it is no wonder that after 10 years of his government there are 42 projects in a backlog currently under assessment. Twelve of those projects that are delayed are in northern Ontario, representing a combined 2,100 jobs and nearly $2.7 billion of investment, and I would like to touch on a couple of them, if I may.

One is the Crawford nickel project north of Timmins. It has been under assessment since 2022, and it would add 900 jobs if approved.

There is the Springpole gold project, in my riding, which is northeast of Red Lake. It has been under assessment for seven years and represents potentially $2 billion in GDP growth. It is an incredible opportunity for people in northwestern Ontario and for our economy as a whole if this government is able to get out of the way.

There is the Great Bear gold project southeast of Red Lake. There is a lot going on in Red Lake; it is very exciting, with lots of opportunity if we can capitalize on it. The Great Bear gold project has been under assessment since 2023.

The northern road link project, north of Thunder Bay, is a project proposed by Marten Falls and Webequie first nations. It has been under assessment since 2023 as well. There is a lot of opportunity for true partnership, I think, between the federal government and these two nations. It is really a corridor to prosperity not just for these two nations but for our country as a whole.

Again, these are all the positive things that could be happening, but 42 of these positive things, these projects, are being stalled. The government is bringing forward this bill now. It says it is going to get things moving in two years, but I say, why not start with the 42 projects that are currently under assessment? The Liberals are bringing forward this whole new regime, this whole new bureaucracy to, hopefully, move things forward within a two-year timeline. In many respects, I appreciate that step they are taking, but after the neglect, after the constant roadblocks for 10 years, why not go for the low-hanging fruit, these 42 projects that are there, ready and waiting for some certainty?

I will end by saying that Conservatives are happy if even one project gets accelerated, but more must be done. We definitely have to repeal Bill C-69, the "no new pipelines" bill; Bill C-50, the so-called Sustainable Jobs Act; and the industrial carbon tax as well, to help ensure we can make Canada more competitive and thrive in the current economic situation.

Conservatives are ready to work in this chamber with all parties to unlock the resources that we have across our country. We propose shovel-ready zones that provide permitting, clear conditions and boundaries to start building the pipelines, the mines and other major projects that we need to grow our economy, provide great jobs for people in northwestern Ontario and across the country, and of course, secure that economic independence and security that I spoke about previously. The resource sector certainly needs a break. It needs some relief and some support from the federal government, and Conservatives stand ready to get that done.

I look forward to any questions and comments from my colleagues.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his explanations.

I think that all the comments he made are covered in the bill. As for the decision-making process he was talking about, which is quite slow, the bill shortens that decision-making process with less delay and less waiting. When he talks about oil projects, it is very interesting, but there are other projects as well. We truly need to diversify our economy, and that is what we want to do by requiring only one review for each project.

I have a very simple question for my colleague. Given that the bill responds to all the concerns he raised in connection with one strong Canadian economy, would my colleague be prepared to work with his party to help this bill move forward as quickly as possible for the good of Canadians?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my comments, Conservatives are happy to see even one project accelerated. We think it is high time. It is long past time, after the government has dragged its feet, or I would say has put up barriers and distinct roadblocks purposely to stop development over the last 10 years.

In some respects, it is heartening to see that the Liberals are coming around. We are ready to work with them. We are ready to work with all parties in the House to ensure that we can unlock the vast potential of the resource sector across Canada, provide good jobs and provide more economic independence and security.