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

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

Topics

line drawing of robot

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

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

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

Statements by Members

Question Period

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

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

Petitions

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

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

Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the WholePrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Saint-Maurice—Champlain Québec

Liberal

François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of Finance and National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today to address the question of privilege raised by the member for Mirabel.

I have had the pleasure of working with my hon. colleague for four years now. I hope that he will agree that I have always been courteous and frank in my dealings with him and with all members of the House. However, in raising this question of privilege, the member accuses me of deliberately misleading the House during consideration of the main estimates in committee of the whole.

As we all know, procedures in committee of the whole can be lengthy and, in some cases, questions can be open to interpretation. A review of the transcripts will show that the member for Mirabel asked me:

Were these carbon tax rebate cheques that were sent out in the middle of an election to buy votes in eight provinces delivered without the tax that funded them being collected?

To that question, I simply replied, “Madam Chair, the answer is no.” I believe that it is simply wrong to describe the carbon tax payments as an attempt to buy votes, as the member implied in his question.

The date on which the rebate cheques were sent to Canadians is public knowledge. At no time did I mislead the House on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your attention to this matter, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. At no time did I attempt to mislead the House.

House of CommonsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

I have the honour to lay upon the table the House of Commons' “Report to Canadians 2025”.

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, reports from the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the following activities: the 67th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, held in Sydney, Australia, from November 3 to 8, 2024; the Artificial Intelligence in Security Workshop, held in London, United Kingdom, from January 27 to 30, 2025; and the 73rd Westminster Seminar, held in London, United Kingdom, from March 10 to 14, 2025.

Bill C-210 Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867Routine Proceedings

June 16th, 2025 / 3:25 p.m.

Bloc

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑210, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office).

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that a bill to amend the Canadian Constitution is introduced. Today, I am pleased to introduce in the House a bill to amend section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to eliminate the obligation to swear an oath to the King. Under this bill, the oath to the King would be replaced with an oath of office similar to the ones sworn by judges and some senior government officials. An MP who is elected by the people officially takes office once they have sworn an oath. However, what should be a moment of pride and celebration becomes a painful, humiliating experience that besmirches our honour and undermines the credibility of our institutions. Many Canadians, along with nine out of 10 Quebeckers, reject the monarchy, the living embodiment of old British oppression. This is therefore a test and an opportunity for Canada to show that it is as inclusive and open as it often claims to be. Everyone knows that an oath to the King is nothing more than a remnant of colonialism, and it is time to free ourselves from that.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Forestry IndustryPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour to table this petition, which was signed by mill workers at the Domtar Catalyst mill in Port Alberni.

The petitioners highlight that Canada's forestry industry has historically been a source of good jobs for rural communities. The forestry industry has faced multiple challenges in recent years that have led to significant job losses, including wildfires, infestations and the ongoing softwood lumber dispute. The U.S. trade policy poses a serious threat to Canada's forestry industry, as well as the communities it supports, such as Port Alberni.

Forest biomass energy production has the potential to provide Canadian electrical grids with a sustainable source of energy while creating jobs for rural communities. Canada's failure to implement biomass tax incentives has left our forestry sector at a competitive disadvantage compared to the U.S.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to commit to the timely passage of a biomass tax credit to support Canadian forestry workers, which was in the 2023 fall economic statement, and increase federal funding for market expansion programs to find new customers for Canadian wood products and construction systems.

Women and Gender EqualityPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to present a petition today that is really important for women's rights.

The petitioners are particularly concerned with and focused on the gender apartheid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is depriving women and girls of fundamental rights. Girls are denied the right to learn and to go to school; these are full violations of international law under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and against the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

I know I am only to summarize petitions. This one is lengthy, and I will summarize it as follows.

The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to formally and publicly declare Canada's support to include gender apartheid as a crime against humanity and international law, to advocate for the CEDAW framework, to take on gender apartheid and make specific changes in our policies to reach out to support Afghan women and girls, to collaborate with other UN member states, to sanction senior Taliban officials under Canada's Magnitsky laws and to make every possible effort to protect our sisters in Afghanistan from a cruel, misogynistic, illegal regime.

Please, I urge the government to consider this petition.

Prison Needle Exchange ProgramPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, today I table two petitions on behalf of voters in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

The first is in respect to the prison needle exchange program. Drugs and drug paraphernalia are considered contraband in prison, yet the Liberal government is forcing our correctional officers to simply turn a blind eye and allow dangerous drugs to be used inside our prisons.

These correctional officers are calling on the government to immediately cancel the prison needle exchange program, stop permitting the use of illicit drugs in Canadian prisons and focus on efforts related to recovery.

Criminal CodePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of Seabird Island First Nation.

On June 23, 2022, Bill C-28 received royal assent, which allowed for extreme intoxication to be used as a defence for violent crimes such as sexual assault, where a reasonable person would not have foreseen the risk of a violent loss of control.

Residents are very concerned about this provision in the Criminal Code and are asking the Government of Canada to repeal it.

GazaPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Uqaqtittiji, I have a petition from 65 Canadians led by Doctors Against Genocide.

The petitioners are calling for the implementation of the Geneva Conventions, as well as making sure that international assistance accountability act requires all Canadian foreign aid to uphold human rights and international legal standards.

The petition is calling on citizens and residents of Canada to call upon the Government of Canada to do five different things: first, to publicly and unequivocally reject the militarized aid model currently used in Palestine; second, to demand the full restoration of access for UN agencies and established humanitarian NGOs, including UNRWA and the World Food Programme; third, to insist on safe and immediate entry for Canadian health care workers and other international humanitarian personnel to Palestine; fourth, to withhold Canadian funding from any entity or model that does not comply with the principles of neutrality; and finally, fifth, to ensure that all Canadian aid to Gaza is delivered through internationally recognized humanitarian channels.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment

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

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, while I have spoken many times in committee of the whole, while presenting petitions and when asking questions during question period, so far in this parliamentary session, I have not participated in Government Orders. To that end, I would like to thank the voters in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford for giving me an overwhelming majority to represent them in the people's House of Commons in the 45th Parliament.

It is the honour of my professional career to be a hometown boy representing his community. I thank the people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. I thank my family for supporting me. I do not take this job lightly, and I will work tirelessly on their behalf.

This was a different election. To go back a few months, former prime minister Trudeau resigned and the Prime Minister was elected, by Liberal voters, to lead the Liberal Party of Canada. In April, the Liberal Party put forward a platform called “Canada Strong”, a plan to unite, secure, protect, build. The language in this platform is very important. In fact, it led to the Liberals winning the most seats in the House of Commons again. On page one, it states:

America’s unjustified and reckless trade war threatens Canadian jobs, businesses, and our way of life. They are trying to weaken us so they can own us. In the face of this threat, we have a plan to build the strongest economy in the G7.

I outline that point because there was a lot of fear in this election, and rightfully so, about what Canada's relationship would be like with the United States. It came up at the doorstep every day, especially, I will note, among baby boomers. The first page of the Liberal platform goes on to state that a government, led by the current Prime Minister, “has a plan to remove barriers to internal trade.” It goes on to states that the Liberals “will reduce internal trade costs by up to 15% and expand our economy by up to $200 billion, that is up to $5,000 for every Canadian.”

In British Columbia, this was talked about a lot. It was actually a platform commitment to remove internal trade barriers to have free trade in Canada. It was a platform commitment shared with that of the Conservative Party of Canada. This brings us to the fourth sitting week of Parliament since the election, and today we are debating Bill C-5, a free trade and labour mobility act. However, when we look at the bill, there is a problem because the rhetoric in the Liberal platform does not match the reality in the legislation before us today. In fact, the bill would really do nothing to meet the expectations of what Canadians expected from Parliament. I will explain.

Bill C-5 does not address any of the key promises made by the Liberal platform. It would not enforce mutual recognition across provinces and territories. It does not address and would not dismantle provincial trade barriers. It does not include any binding timelines or enforcement mechanisms. It does not establish “buy Canadian” procurement standards. It would not fund or prioritize infrastructure needed for free trade between the provinces and territories. It would not protect or support Canadian industries under foreign trade attacks. It would not create the promised centralized one window for major project approvals. I will note, as a British Columbian, that it would not remove the internal trade barriers between provinces and territories for B.C. farmers, such as our wine growers, to sell their products, barrier-free, across our great nation, which needs to be pointed out.

As I mentioned, we have no idea what the economic consequences of this bill would be. The Liberal platform, as I just outlined, said that, by breaking down internal trade barriers before July 1, there would be massive economic development in Canada and $5,000 more in the pocket of every Canadian. I am stating this point again because I do not believe that is the case. I look forward to the Parliamentary Budget Officer giving a clear breakdown on what the economic positives or negatives of this bill will have on Canada's economy.

Another massive and glaring omission in Bill C-5 is its failure to address another key thing Canadians wanted this election, and that was credential recognition for health care workers. In my province, we are facing a health care crisis. In fact, I receive more calls about hospital closures than almost any other subject in my constituency office. I have had constituents die because the health care centre in one town is too far away from the hospital where they could have received the medical treatment that used to be available in their community. There is broad consensus in Canada that we need credential recognition, that we need to allow the foreign-trained nurses and doctors who we permitted into Canada under our immigration point systems to do exactly what they intended to do when they got to Canada.

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

3:40 p.m.

An hon. member

How would you do that?

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

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has not. Frankly, in his riding, the Filipinos are very upset with him because he made that promise, and he cannot deliver on it.

Conservatives proposed a blue seal program that would allow health care workers to transfer their skills easily across provinces and the establishment of a national competency body, similar to the Red Seal programs for trade. Bill C-5 does not solve any of these issues, even though every politician in the House of Commons knows it was something raised at the doorstep every day during the election.

With my limited time here today, I will just quickly touch upon part 2 of the bill, the building Canada act, which gives the federal government power to designate and fast-track so-called national interest projects. Earlier this morning, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley outlined some of the major flaws with this aspect of the bill, and it largely related to the duty to consult.

British Columbia has a higher proportion of first nations than any other province in the country. First nations in British Columbia want to see major projects built. They want to partner with the federal government, but they see parts of this legislation as a poison pill. It seems to them that the Prime Minister is seeking to usurp their constitutionally given rights to be consulted and to in work with the government for economic reconciliation. The bill could have clarified those points, not in the preamble, but in the body of the text, to give first nations the authority and respect they deserve on major projects going forward. That was not included in the bill.

On major projects, this bill would create a new industry for consultants. Unlike Bill C-69, which has effectively shut down all major resource projects in Canada, this new bill, and I am voting for it, so I am not completely against it, but I am outlining the criticisms, would allow proponents to go directly to the Prime Minister's office without checks and balances. In some cases, sure, that would be okay, but we do not know what the Prime Minister intends, what his criteria are going to be and how he is going to be transparent with all of Canada about what projects he is picking and choosing. I do not want to live in a country where one man gets to pick winners and losers. I want a country where every project proponent sees a pathway to a yes or no answer with a reasonable amount of investment dollars put forward. That is not too much to ask. Other countries with our resources already have similar processes. We used to have it in Canada. We are asking for that to be returned.

As we are in the period of time to debate this bill only today in the House of Commons because of a closure motion, I will have to keep my remarks short. I thank again the people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford for putting their trust in me. It is a true honour.

I look forward to studying this bill in more detail.

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

3:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for voting in favour of the closure motion, which demonstrates that he not only supports the legislation, but also understands and appreciates why it is so important that we pass it before July 1.

Respecting the member's comments, I do have one specific question. He seems to have the impression that all Ottawa politicians have to do is pass legislation, even if it goes into provincial jurisdiction, because the provinces, from his perspective, might not necessarily mind. I am not aware whether we can actually do that.

Specifically, the member said that the blue seal program Pierre Poilievre talked about would have recognized any international doctor or nurse, no matter where they lived in Canada, and that the Conservatives would be able to do that. Does the member believe that the federal government has that type of authority? It seems to me that is provincial jurisdiction, and we should be talking with the provinces about it.

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

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, with respect to the question from the member for Winnipeg North, there would have been a federal licensing body.

Let us turn to page 2 of the Liberal platform, which states, “Unleash free trade in Canada by Canada Day by tabling legislation to eliminate all federal barriers”. We are not getting that.

The platform continues, “Achieve mutual recognition of credentials with provinces and territories so Canadians can work wherever they want.” We are not achieving that. It was right in the Liberals' platform on page 2. The Liberals did not fulfill that promise.

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

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague. In our opinion, Bill C-5 is a major democratic setback. It is also a step backwards in our environmental protections.

My colleague must know that supporting the closure motion and eventually the bill will not just put this on the Liberals' record; it will also be on the Conservatives' record.

What will Bill C‑5 do? When a major project is proposed and is considered to be in the national interest, some legislation will no longer need to be circumvented, such as the Fisheries Act.

What is the purpose of the Fisheries Act? Section 2.1 of that act states that the purpose of the act is to provide a framework for the management and control of fisheries, as well as the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.

Why does my colleague think that a major project deemed in the national interest must necessarily be carried out at the expense of preserving fish?

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

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, there were multiple questions and points made by the member, and I congratulate him on his entry into the House of Commons.

I will note that I am supporting this bill because I believe there is an urgency. I just believe that the Prime Minister's Office is going too far and is lacking transparency in its approach to the second part of the bill before us today.

If the member would like to speak further about fisheries-related issues, I would be pleased to do so, as I represent a large portion of the Fraser River and some of the most important salmon stocks in all of Canada.

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

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize a new person in Kamloops, a new cousin. His name is Harry Smith, born to Lewis Smith and my cousin Claudia Wright. I welcome Harry to the world. It is a pleasure to have him as one of our newest members in Kamloops.

My hon. colleague spoke about first nations and consultation. I took over part of his riding through redistribution. We now have 27 first nations in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. I wonder if, given his knowledge of the area, the member could expand on the comments he made earlier respecting first nations.

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

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, in the Fraser Canyon and Fraser Valley region, we are seeing a huge number of first nations entrepreneurs who want to build projects on their traditional lands. They want to bring economic prosperity to their people, and they are pushing ahead faster than the Government of Canada is able to move with more projects.

First nations want to see barriers eliminated for that work. They want to see federal departments get out of the way, with their overburdensome red tape, to allow them to not only build and to take economic risks, but also, ultimately, put forward and support projects that are going to bring economic prosperity to a region of the country that has been ignored by many consecutive governments.

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

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Lewis Conservative Essex, ON

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the fine member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

This being the first substantial time I have spoken in the House, I would like to ask for a few moments to thank a bunch of people who made it happen. Number one, first and foremost, as always, is my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Without Him, I would not have the ability or opportunity to serve the great folks of Essex.

I want to say thanks so much to my lovely wife Allison of 27 years—

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

3:50 p.m.

An hon. member

What a saint.

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

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Lewis Conservative Essex, ON

Yes, she is a saint.

Madam Speaker, I thank her for being there with me and thank my three amazing children. I thank my father Kim, who has taught me a lot along the way, and my late mom Helen, who I know is looking down.

I also thank my amazing election team so much for all their hard work. I have one of the very best teams. Of course, I thank the amazing people of Essex, who have put their trust in me for a third term.

Over the last 10 years, we have been in this House time and time again facing legislation that stems from the Liberal anti-energy agenda, with bills like Bill C-49, Bill C-55 and, most notably, Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” act. Each of these bills sought to increase the regulatory framework around energy infrastructure, slowing and in many cases stopping development. Because of these policies, in January of this year, EnergyNow reported that since 2015, Canada has seen $670 billion in cancelled natural resource projects.

The cancellation of these projects has had devastating impacts on people's lives, with the Montreal Economic Institute projecting that the Liberal oil and gas cap could cause the loss of almost 113,000 jobs by 2040. How striking it is that a political party that has spent the last 10 years throwing up every barrier it could to the construction of new energy infrastructure should now find urgency in passing Bill C-5, a bill that would only slightly lower some of those barriers.

Across Canada, unemployment has risen to 7% according to the latest data released by Statistics Canada. Liberal job-killing policies have caused this crisis, and the refusal to repeal antidevelopment laws will only worsen it. Through this act, the government is telling Canadians that the very laws it has implemented have prevented them from getting jobs, prevented them from putting food on the table and prevented the economic development of our country.

How many more cancelled projects, layoffs and losses of income will we see before we say enough is enough? What we saw consistently from the last government was sweeping plans and grand promises, but no action, and here we go again.

On June 9, the hon. government House leader said, “Bill C-5 is a response to an economic and trade crisis caused by our neighbours to the south.” He is right. Our lack of growth in the energy sector has created a reliance resulting in the United States receiving 96% of our oil exports in 2023. It is now the number one exporter of LNG in the world, a position that should and could have been held by Canada.

If the Liberals had focused on bringing energy products into Canada over the last 10 years instead of halting their development, Canadians would not be losing their jobs and we would not be stuck playing a frantic defence. In the past five years, proposals have come from almost a dozen countries that have wanted to purchase or partner with Canada's LNG production, such as Germany and Poland in 2022, Japan and South Korea in 2023, and Greece, the Philippines and Taiwan in 2024.

The Liberals have had the last 10 years to strengthen our workforce and economic independence and diversify our LNG. Instead, they have left Canada without the option and infrastructure to stand on our own two feet. Canada should be strong and independent, not scrambling to pass legislation because the government realized it has been making serious mistakes.

Bill C-5 promises to speed up the approval process and remove regulatory barriers. If that is the goal, why does the government want to create an entirely new office to oversee each project proposal? This regulatory body has not been identified, may take several months to establish and staff, has an unknown set of criteria by which to assess projects and does not have a designated minister.

As it stands, the building Canada act may at best reduce the number of months that a proposed project would spend before the new regulatory body. To build a major project today, whether it is a pipeline, a mine, an electricity transmission line or any other project, takes several years, and there is good reason for that. Those years are filled with advanced planning, engineering, road evaluation and consultations with landowners and indigenous communities, and then they take several months to build.

Shortening the regulatory reviews, while desirable, will not change that, nor will it prevent groups that oppose such projects from using the courts to hamper and delay their development. Those legal delays will undoubtedly drag on, and we will see exactly what we have seen over the past 10 years: Projects will get cancelled, and hard-working Canadians will lose their livelihoods because of the government's lack of planning.

What happens when the approval of important projects is sped up without proper consideration is that mistakes are made, details are overlooked and corners get cut. TD forecasts that there will be 100,000 job losses by the third quarter of this year. Canada cannot afford this lack of concrete planning or commitments. More cancelled and delayed projects will lead to more Canadians who cannot provide for their families.

Several areas of the bill are vague and noncommittal. For example, Bill C-5 fails to outline clear criteria for what is considered a national interest project, and hidden away at the end of the bill, it states that cabinet has the power to exempt national interest projects from federal laws. The government is handing itself unchecked power to exempt projects it deems important and telling us not to question it, without committing to repealing the laws that have created these problems in the first place.

Additionally, the bill fails to provide concrete timelines for the new and improved approvals process. The Liberals have merely stated that the goal for this bill is to shorten approval timelines from five years to two, but conveniently have not committed to that timeline in the text of the bill.

Not only will this bill make little to no real impact on the timeline of energy infrastructure projects, but the Prime Minister has also said the premiers will have a veto on resource projects and pipelines, which will certainly cause delays and hinder our fight to protect Canadian sovereignty. At best, moving projects from concepts to useful and operating infrastructure will still take several years and billions of dollars. What is the justification for ramming this bill through the House without proper examination and debate to ensure it will have the same benefits the government claims?

This cabinet is effectively the same as the last one. For the past 10 years, it has failed to further Canada's interests, increase Canadian jobs, grow Canada's economy or strengthen Canada's sovereignty. As my colleague, the hon. member for Lakeland, pointed out on May 28, “the Liberals [have] killed 16 major energy projects” in the last five years. She went on to ask why we should trust what they will be able to get done this time around.

If the government wants to enact real change and speed up nation-building projects, then it should repeal its antidevelopment laws that block those projects so we can strengthen the jobs in our oil and gas sector. Furthermore, it should repeal the industrial carbon tax, which is financially strangling our farmers and steel, aluminum and natural gas producers, and causing companies to give up their operations in Canada and move to other countries.

Make no mistake: Conservatives want to see streamlined project development without the piles of red tape that have built up over the past decade. We want to work with the government to make sure that happens. Conservatives have been consistent in our support for natural energy infrastructure, warning the Liberals for years about the economic necessity of these projects. However, that does not mean we should not do our due diligence and take the time to properly consider this legislation.

In its current state, Bill C-5 does not provide real solutions. The crisis caused by the Liberals has robbed Canadians of jobs and stability. Bill C-5 also has no impact on the laws causing these issues, the laws that have given us skyrocketing unemployment and an oil and gas sector that is far behind our competitors'.

Canadians deserve economic stability, but they also deserve transparency and clarity. I challenge the government to repeal its antipipeline and antidevelopment laws and allow the House the time to flesh out the details of this bill to give Canadians concrete timelines and a set list of criteria so it provides real, tangible benefits to Canadians.