Debates of June 16th, 2025

Consideration of Government Business No. 1

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that my Conservative colleagues are not very satisfied with Bill C‑5. It is an understatement to say that we are not either, because we are more than dissatisfied. We are deeply concerned about what is in this bill.

Given that the Conservatives themselves are dissatisfied, why are they in favour of fast-tracking a bill that will make major changes to the way projects are approved?

More importantly, will we have the time to do things properly, since closure will not allow us to carry out a serious study?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc colleague sits with me on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We will be studying the bill this week around the clock, clause by clause, and I am sure we will have many points of agreement and discussion around that, to make some improvements to what we view as a bill that does move the needle just slightly, as referred to in the comments from the business leaders, but certainly not enough.

There is so much more potential that needs to be unleashed in Canada, and this bill is just going to take that tiny baby step toward it. We certainly support that little bit of progress, but we want to see a whole lot more, and I do look forward to working with the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who sits on the transport committee with me, for his speech today. The government likes to talk about one national economy, yet we see in the second half of Bill C-5, and the Prime Minister has said publicly, that provincial premiers are going to have a veto. That means 13 different economies by its very nature.

Could the member expound upon whether he finds there is a contradiction here in what the government says and what it legislates?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly see that the movement towards free trade within Canada by Canada Day is, obviously, not going to happen. The bill just moves an inch along, and it is woefully inadequate. As my colleague pointed out, the vetoes that are contained within it are an impediment to that one Canadian economy.

It just harkens back to the original Canada free trade agreement that the old Liberal Party government, apparently now the new government, had under Trudeau. There were hundreds of pages of exceptions. I do not know what is new in this particular piece of legislation.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador relies heavily on the tourism industry. In fact, it is one of the biggest employers in rural Newfoundland, since the collapse of the fishery. Even this industry has a massive trade barrier: the Marine Atlantic ferry. This ferry acts as a bottleneck, holding back growth despite demand. Bill C-5 talks about nation-building projects, yet our current infrastructure and transportation system needs immediate attention.

During tourism season, these vessels are fully booked, with no room for tourist vehicles and RVs. Although most hotels, resorts and restaurants have more capacity, tourists are not able to get across the gulf into Newfoundland. Our tourism industry has grown tremendously in the last decade, yet Marine Atlantic services have hardly grown. Hotel rooms and historical tours go unused because there is no ferry space available to bring travellers in.

During this last campaign, when the Liberals knew they were going to lose more seats, like mine, they made a last-minute election promise to reduce the ferry rates. Now, we can all agree that passenger rates should be free, but the Liberals promised to reduce rates before Canada Day. We are only two weeks away, and the prices still have not changed. People are booking ferry rides now for July and August, but what will happen? Will they get reimbursed? People do not know what is going to happen. This uncertainty undermines planning for families and is creating uncertainty in our tourism industry.

If the Liberals want to reduce trade barriers, they need to take a good look at how the island of Newfoundland does trade. Fifty percent of our province's cargo shipments are through private cargo companies, yet only Marine Atlantic cargo is subsidized. How can private industry compete when shipping costs are so high?

If the government wants to continue its freeze on transport trucks, will this create even more demand on Marine Atlantic services, eliminating even more possible ventures for passenger opportunity and tourism opportunity? Why does the Liberal government not make up its mind and either subsidize all cargo shipping into the province or none of it? Perhaps that would shift the cargo market, resulting in fewer transport trucks on our ferries, allowing for more passengers and more tourists to boost our economy, which would reduce the interprovincial trade barriers on our tourism industry.

Speaking of ferries, I see in the national news that the Province of British Columbia has awarded its ferry construction contracts to Chinese companies, for the ferries to be built in China, a country we are currently having a trade war with. This decision undermines Canada's industrial backbone. The Prime Minister says he is elbows up for Canada, and he brags about allegedly successful meetings with premiers across the country, yet he cannot seem to convince B.C. to build these ferries here in Canada.

Talk without action means loss of jobs for our country, which may soon have a stockpile of unused steel and skyrocketing unemployment. I am curious to know how many other boatbuilding jobs will be going overseas. B.C. alone says it expects to create 18 new ferries in the next 15 years. Where will these boats be built? Will these powerful paycheques retreat overseas?

I understand that the Liberal government has all its consultants as busy as a Bay Street banker rewriting the rules of capitalism before breakfast, but perhaps the Transport Canada minister and her team could investigate this fiasco to determine what needs to be done for these boats to be built here in Canada. In my district alone, there are two shipyards and two fabrication sites sitting idle. Perhaps the Liberal government could work with private industry to make real investment here in Atlantic Canada to conduct minor upgrades to build these ferries, future ferries and other Canadian ships. These idle sites represent a ready-for-business infrastructure and workforce.

Being an island and a landmass in the most eastern part of the country holds other connection difficulties as well. Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the largest providers of hydroelectricity in the country, with potential to have massive expansion, yet we struggle to get our power to market. Will the government use Bill C-5 to remove the interprovincial trade barriers on our green energy by ensuring that its proposed energy corridor would be connected to our province? That way, we could sell our electricity at fair market value without the extortion of other provinces. Removing these barriers would both boost our Newfoundland economy and meet national energy needs.

Considering the government just hired Hydro-Québec's Michael Sabia, I and every other Newfoundlander and Labradorian have major doubts that this energy corridor would allow our Labrador electricity to market without other provinces taking the icing off the top.

We want someone from the government on that side of the House to take a stand and assure us that this energy corridor will remove all provincial barriers and gatekeepers, so Newfoundland and Labrador can get our energy to market without having to give away our lunch money. We want a commitment to clarity, timelines and fair play conditions so that all provincial governments and private energy investors can prepare for this enormous opportunity.

Let us get down to the core of Bill C-5. The biggest component of the bill would allow the Liberal government to select a few projects it deems as nation-building projects. What is interesting about this is that even the Liberals now understand that their anti-building laws, anti-mining laws and anti-energy laws are too much for private industry to navigate on their own. They created so much red tape that they now need this new bill to roll out the red carpet for their VIP-selected projects.

Perhaps my colleagues will be filled with the highest level of integrity and would never plan to violate any ethical policies or choose companies that would benefit them, but I can assure the members, absolute power corrupts absolutely. By giving themselves the power to make or break any project in Canada with a slight stroke of a pen, it is only a matter of time before we see more shameful stories such as GC Strategies, which was given nearly 100 million taxpayer dollars in contracts to do nothing, or the green slush fund, where over six years Sustainable Development Technology Canada approved approximately 900 million taxpayer dollars in funding that was inappropriately directed to projects that violated guidelines, often given to companies that Liberal MPs or their friends owned. We must learn from the past. Those warnings cannot be ignored.

Furthermore, if the Liberals realize that a handful of supposed nation-building projects would help our economy, why can they not understand that hundreds of these projects across our nation would put this country back on track, where it needs to be, and take care of our seniors, pave our roads and fix our health care? We would not even need Bill C-5 if the government were to repeal Bill C-69, which blocks pipelines projects through this country, and Bill C-48, which cripples our offshore industry. We would not need Bill C-5 if the Liberals had never implemented the production and emission caps that are choking our economy or if we had never had the last Liberal decade because we would have had one of the strongest economies in the world. We have everything in this country to succeed, except for good leadership.

I grew up in a Canada where an average kid from Clarenville could have endless possibilities. He could run for student council and one day be the MP, or he could start pumping gas and dream of one day owning that gas station and be an oil tycoon, just like “Old Man” Irving. Bill C-5 would kill this dream and many more just like it.

Bill C-5 tells young Canadians that, if they want to build something, they have to be pals with the people at the top. It is a perfect fantasy for Canadian oligarchs. That is not the Canadian dream. It is a nightmare of privilege. It replaces merit with connection, potential with politics and small-town hope with big-city gatekeeping. We need a Canada where every company and every person has equal opportunity, and we need a smaller government to make way for bigger citizens.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am a new member of the House, and I was very impressed this morning with the vote and the support in the House for our bill. To me, it speaks about action. Action is so important, and I think, certainly, that is what Canadians are looking for.

I was impressed with my colleague's comments. I have been following as well, at a distance, the matter of tolls on ferries, and I appreciate his frustration. I understand that some of the reasons behind the difficulty in resolving some of these matters is due to the fact that there are many ferry companies that are involved and there are some complexities involved.

I was wondering if my colleague could comment on how he might play a role more locally, in his riding, in resolving this matter.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we have one transport company from mainland Canada to Newfoundland and Labrador for passengers. It is Marine Atlantic. We do have cargo ships and other companies as well, but we have one for passengers and tourists. That is the one I am speaking of today. There are a lot of things we can do locally, but Marine Atlantic is a national, Crown corporation, and it starts right here in the House.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

For several weeks now, we have heard the Conservatives criticize the Liberals on ArriveCAN and GC Strategies and question their ethics. This legislation will really give the Liberals superpowers, allowing them to shield their developer friends from the law. Proposed section 21 will allow them to exempt developers from ethics laws, the Canada Labour Code, and so on.

I wonder why, in this context, the Conservatives supported the closure motion that will allow the Liberals to pass this bill without any serious consideration and without members being able to improve it.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, desperate times call for desperate measures. Conservatives knocked on the doors of Canadians, and we understand, with the cost of living, they are really worried if they are going to make the next rent.

We understand that some projects in this country are better than no projects. We have stated over and over that these are baby steps in the right direction, but we need to repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 to unleash Canada's potential, so we can improve this country and give the citizens at home a better quality of life.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Terra Nova—The Peninsulas gave an inspiring speech.

The member mentioned the importance of ferries. His riding and mine are at opposite ends of the country, but they have this in common: We are coastal provinces, where ferries for passengers and traffic are very important. However, in British Columbia, we are not even building our own ferries. I wonder if the member could comment on the importance of one strong Canadian economy to be able to at least build our own ships.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague.

We are in a crisis right now. We are in a tariff war with multiple countries across the world. However, we may have a stockpile of unused steel, and this would be a great opportunity to put our workforce to work, whether they were to be built in B.C., Newfoundland or anywhere in Canada. It is a great opportunity, but it does not seem like the government is interested in seizing that opportunity to create work here at home.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I congratulate the member on his election.

I wonder if the member has heard from the Nunatsiavut Government in his province and whether it has shared its concerns with Bill C-5 and how the bill would infringe on its rights.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have not heard directly on Bill C-5, but throughout the campaign, when I talked to aboriginal people in our province, everyone had the same concern. They want to be consulted before things go through. They do not want the federal government to have a veto card to push anything through.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

I just want to give my thanks to my neighbours in Beaches—East York. Trust is everything in our democracy. It means a lot to be given their trust, and I am going to work hard to earn it.

Against the economic threat posed by President Trump, Canadian politicians have rightly renewed calls to build up our country. I am one of them. It is a nation-building moment. A strong and resilient domestic economy is a priority. Of course, it should be. To that end, we should remove unreasonable barriers to economic growth. If a rule does not contribute to the public interest, or if its negative cost is disproportionate to any positive contribution, we should do away with it, but that does not mean we should pursue economic growth no matter the cost.

Depending on the project, there may be competing public interest considerations, including biodiversity and habitat protection, indigenous rights, climate change, long-term cost-effectiveness, democratic participation and more. However, under the guise of responding to the threat posed by Trump, we are sacrificing other important values. We are not thinking about unintended consequences, and we are actively undermining our parliamentary democracy. Consider the case of two bills, Doug Ford's Bill 5 and the federal government's Bill C-5.

Ontario's Bill 5 became law last week. It not only gutted habitat protection, just to start, but also enacted the Special Economic Zones Act to give the government, unnecessarily and disproportionately, unchecked power. Effectively, the government can now designate special economic zones and then exempt or alter any provincial or municipal law that would apply to a company or project within those zones. Ecojustice rightly called it a threat to democracy. Worse, the Ford government shut down democratic debate, curtailed committee scrutiny, and jammed the bill through the legislature. Now, that may be par for the course for Doug Ford. That is fair.

However, Ecojustice has also called the federal government's bill, Bill C-5, a threat to democracy, and no Liberal government should welcome that accusation. Worse, with Bill C-5, in a Bill 5 déjà vu, the federal government is proposing to shut down democratic debate, curtail committee scrutiny and jam the bill through the legislature. It would all actually make Harper blush. Liberals would rightly scream if a federal Conservative government attempted the same.

While they share similar goals, and yes, they suffer some similar defects, the federal Bill C-5 is not exactly the same as Ford's. Part 1 of our legislation, the free trade and labour mobility act, usefully aims to harmonize federal and provincial rules where reasonably possible. The idea is simple, to avoid duplicative regulation of goods, services and labour where federal and provincial rules are comparable. Yes, of course, the devil is in the details of assessing what comparable means, but it is a welcome move.

The problems with Bill C-5 lie in part 2, the building Canada act. Its purpose is clear, to get national interest projects built more quickly. This is so far, so good. The proposed law would streamline authorizations at the same time that it emphasizes the importance of climate action and indigenous rights. This is a huge and positive distinction from Ford's Bill 5. At no point does Ford's bill even mention climate change or the need to consult with affected indigenous rights holders. However, despite its promise, the proposed building Canada act has two major faults. First, it would give the government unfettered discretion in designating national interest projects, and second, similar to Ford's Bill 5, it would give the government unchecked power to exclude or alter any law that would otherwise apply to such a project.

The Minister of Natural Resources set the stage for Bill C-5 in a May 23 speech calling for a renewed spirit of building by reframing the national conversation. There has been no more asking about why we should build. The real question is, how do we get it done? In my view, it would be wise of the government to take its own advice when it comes to Bill C-5. Rather than defending the “why”, or the idea of the bill, we should refocus our attention on the “how”, or how we pass it. In other words, we should improve the bill and respect democratic participation as we do so.

First, we should welcome greater parliamentary and civil society scrutiny. The government's proposed guillotine motion seeks to limit parliamentary debate at every stage of the bill. More concerning, it will jam all expert and public testimony, and all committee scrutiny, into less than two days. What is this for? Members can consider that Parliament is not currently scheduled to sit between June 20 and September 15. We are rushing legislation through Parliament under the auspices of an urgent threat, but we are not willing to put Parliament to work for what, an additional week, to get things right?

The debate on amendments does not need to be rushed. We could easily extend committee hearings by an additional week, provide resources for the committee to sit every day and engage in a more thoughtful process to hear from experts, improve the bill and pass it through the House by Canada Day.

Beyond improving the process, we should also fix the substance of Bill C-5.

First, clause 5 currently would give the government unfettered discretion to designate national interest projects. There is a list of specified factors at subclause 5(6) that the government may consider, including the interests of indigenous people, as well as clean growth and meeting Canada's subjects with respect to climate change. That is all good. However, with the bill as currently drafted, the government would not need to consider any or all of these factors. We can and should change that. We could either mandate that the government consider these public interest factors, or we could require that national interest projects not be inconsistent with them. Simply, Parliament should be more prescriptive than including factors as mere examples.

Second, clause 22 would empower the government to exclude the operation of any law from a project it has deemed to be in the national interest. Combined with the unfettered power to designate such projects, it would effectively do away with Parliament. There is an easy fix: Remove this unnecessary and disproportionate power from the law. The government can always amend regulations as it sees fit, but it should return to this place, the House of Commons, if a law duly passed by this place is to be excluded or altered in any given situation. If there is a rationale for excluding the operation of a particular law, of course we can move quickly as needed.

There are no doubt other possibilities to improve the law. It may well make more sense to limit the unique process to the next three years instead of the next five. We could require that ministerial advice with respect to conditional authorizations be made public. Expert testimony would likely offer other good ideas if we care to listen.

For my part, I will support Bill C-5 here at second reading to send it to committee, because it is time to build, and good projects should be built more quickly. I will vote against the government motion that would hinder the work of the parliamentary committee tasked with public hearings and improving the legislation. I will vote for the bill at further stages only if it is amended substantively.

We do not make laws in this place for one government or for one prime minister; the laws we pass are binding on all future governments of all political stripes. Even a time-limited law like the one that is before us would establish a precedent. If passed as it is, Bill C-5 would be a dangerous precedent that would enable Conservatives to gut environmental protections when they are in power next. President Trump is a threat to our economy; of that, there is no doubt. My constituents overwhelmingly voted for a government and leader ready to act, to respond to Trump forcefully and to build up our country thoughtfully, but not at the expense of our democracy, environmental protections and indigenous rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, my first question to the hon. member is whether I can post his speech on my Facebook page. I would appreciate that.

In all seriousness, the bill lacks a lot of things and is susceptible to many things, that is, court challenges as a result of the lack of indigenous consultation within the bill, and other parts as well. I wonder whether the hon. member can speak to the risks as they relate potential court challenges related to the bill.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the member can post anything I say to his Facebook page. His constituents, I think, would welcome most things I say at least.

The second thing is that we should not take the duty to consult lightly. Of course, legislation cannot oust the duty to consult. That is a constitutional obligation, and the courts have well defined it. There are some good things in the bill, and I support its object, of course. However, on that particular question, the bill would require consultation with affected indigenous rights holders, not only in designating a project but also its implementation.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just realized the scope of the message.

Members might have noticed that my colleague used the words of my predecessor last Friday. The only thing, if I understand correctly, is that he voted for it.

What about the next steps? What does my colleague intend to do so that democracy can do its job and that this bill is not pushed through with closure?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was clear on this; I apologize if I was not. The vote we just had was to shorten the debate on the government motion; it was not a vote on the motion itself.

I said I would support the bill at second reading. Of course, I agree with the object of building this country up. Everyone should agree with the object of the bill. I will support getting it to committee. I will support it only if there are substantive amendments at committee, and I am not going to support hindering the work of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation contains principles that, I ultimately believe, were given to every member of Parliament coming out of the election, a mandate to take down barriers and build a stronger, healthier one economy. A good example of that is interprovincial trade, and I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of interprovincial trade and taking down those barriers.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is in all of our interests to remove barriers to interprovincial trade. The challenge, obviously, is that it would come at a particular cost to one province in one case and a different province in another case. The federal government has to show leadership, and through the bill, in part 1 in particular, we are showing that leadership, and that leadership should be welcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, words cannot express my deep respect for the hon. member for Beaches—East York for his courage. I would like to point out to him that the Canadian Cancer Society believes that part 1 also needs to be amended and that it could lead to a race to the bottom without exemptions for health and environmental standards as interprovincial barriers are brought down. Again, Greens favour bringing down interprovincial barriers and building a one Canada economy, but not with a bulldozer pushing it through Parliament.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the devil is in the details of what “comparable” means. I agree that we do not want a race to the bottom, but we definitely want a removal of interprovincial trade barriers that are unreasonable and that hinder our economy.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I worked together on the former ethics committee. Would he agree that a closure motion is more of an autocratic type action, or is it democratic? I would like to clarify with the Liberal government whether it is autocratic in nature, or democratic, with this action?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I might ask the member the same, because he voted for the motion. With respect to a closure motion on a government motion, we should not spend unlimited debate on a government motion. I think we are fairly and fully debating the government motion. The vote that matters is on the government motion, and the member will see how I vote.