Debates of June 20th, 2025

One Canadian Economy Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The deputy House leader of the government.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for running on a banner that promised Canadians the building of a strong economy.

Maybe the minister can talk about how the bill would impact regions like my region in southwestern Ontario, a region that often faces bottlenecks and interprovincial barriers. What impact would there be for workers in our region?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have been hearing from businesses across the country, including businesses in southwestern Ontario, is that our barriers to interprovincial trade are so high that often, after a business was strong enough to expand beyond its local market, the first thing a Canadian business would think to do was export to the United States. That is very much true of southwestern Ontario with its strong cross-border trade. That is one of the reasons the legislation is so timely and so appropriate.

As we are facing tariff barriers from south of the border, now is the moment to make it frictionless for our businesses, including businesses in southwestern Ontario, to trade with other Canadians. It is what we need to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are now at third reading of Bill C-5, our final opportunity in the House to speak to the legislation before it moves to the Senate.

Let me start here: Canadians are not short on talent, we are not short on ambition, and we are certainly not short on natural resources. What we are short on is a government that knows how to unleash that potential and get things built. I hear all the time that people are ready to work, businesses want to expand and communities are waiting for critical infrastructure, but over and over again we run into the same thing: bureaucratic bottlenecks, over-regulation, and a government more interested in announcing headline-grabbing projects than permitting economically important ones.

The bill is about getting big things built, and that should matter a whole lot. Faced with the economic challenges of their own creation, the Liberals have said numerous times recently that this is the moment. What would have met the moment is scrapping Bill C-69, scrapping the shipping ban, and scrapping the oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax.

At committee, Conservatives rolled up our sleeves and got to work. We saw that the bill would create a series of loopholes that would have allowed ministers and the prime minister to bypass Canada's ethics laws, the Conflict of Interest Act, lobbying rules, the protections under the Criminal Code, and the Auditor General Act, among others. Under the original draft of the bill, a minister could have approved a project that would benefit their own investments, and no one would have been the wiser.

We also saw that the bill as originally drafted would have given the government too much power, so we fought back, and we won. With the support of opposition colleagues, Conservative MPs passed amendments to close loopholes, ensure stricter controls and bring about transparency and accountability.

We made sure that public office holders would have to recuse themselves in the event of a conflict. We established a mandatory national security review for foreign state-owned proponents. We added a public registry of projects, clear rationales and a timeline to publish criteria within 15 days of royal assent. We created a mechanism for parliamentary oversight, requiring regular reporting. We mandated public consultation reporting. We forbade the government from exercising extraordinary powers when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued.

Conservatives made the bill better. We delivered transparency, oversight and guardrails. I want to thank my colleagues on the transport committee for their hard work.

However, let me be clear: While we made it better, we cannot pretend that the bill is the be-all and end-all of meeting the moment. Let us look at part 1 of the bill, which is about free trade and labour mobility within Canada. It sounds ambitious, but in reality, it is far more limited. There are no binding timelines, no penalties for delays, no incentives for provinces to actually remove trade barriers and no framework for a blue seal licensing standard that would allow professionals such as engineers, nurses and skilled tradespeople to work across the country based on national credentials.

At committee, we heard from Catherine Swift, president of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada, who summed it up well: Canada has been talking about internal trade for three decades, report after report, announcement after announcement, but it is still not nearly enough meaningful action. The fear is that the bill would only add to that pile and it would become just another press release without a solid plan to move forward.

That is why Conservatives have been proposing a better way to provide financial incentives for provinces that eliminate barriers, which would be a win-win; it would boost GDP, increase revenues and allow provinces to reinvest in important infrastructure projects. The IMF has estimated that removing internal trade barriers could raise Canada's GDP by as much as 4%. That is real growth, real paycheques and real opportunity, but very little of that is in Bill C-5. Again, the bill does not do enough to seriously address the economic headwinds that Canada is facing.

Now I will go on to part 2 of the bill, the building Canada act. This section is supposed to fast-track major projects that are in the national interest, but instead of real reform, we get a selective shortcut. We get all the red tape, bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 remain in place, and there are no clear criteria for what makes a project eligible. There is no certainty for investors, just more discretion handed to the ministers who have failed to deliver time and time again.

Yes, Conservatives improved the bill at committee, but flaws remain. We heard from Dr. Exner-Pirot, director of natural resources, energy and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, at committee. She warned us very bluntly that global capital is mobile. Investors are not going to wait around for a country that takes years to approve a pipeline or transmission line. In fact, they are not waiting; they are going to the United States, they are going to Australia and they are going to Norway, to countries with the same environmental standards but faster, clearer and more reliable approval processes.

We cannot ignore the warning signs. Canada has dropped in global rankings for competitiveness. A lack of clarity, slow timelines and politicized approvals are driving investment away. Conservatives believe in a better path: one-and-done approvals, a national energy corridor and shovel-ready zones. We all want to see worthy projects proceed, not just the ones that are politically favourable that particular week or month.

We are in an era of fierce global competition, urgent infrastructure needs and historic opportunity. While the legislation sets a framework, there is more to be done. There needs to be a clear model for approvals, and impediments to approval need to be cleared, such as, again, Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the production cap, and the industrial carbon tax.

It is important that we step back for a moment and look at the bigger picture. Canada, in the past decade, has ranked dead last in the G7 for economic growth, and 80% to 90% of our energy exports still go to the United States at a discount. Our farmers, miners and manufacturers are boxed in by regulations that serve no one. As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce told us, internal trade barriers act like a self-imposed 21% tariff, and yet we wonder why productivity is stagnant, investment is down and young Canadians cannot find opportunities at home.

Meanwhile, Trump's tariffs are escalating. Our competitors are attracting investment while we are repelling it. The government's answer cannot be another layer of process and platitudes, more bureaucracy and empty promises while opportunity slips away. We are in a moment that calls for ambition, that calls for reform and that calls for leadership. Instead, the government gives us something that sounds good but fails when it meets the reality of the Canadian economy, and Bill C-5, despite the title, despite the spin, still does not do enough to change that.

With the final vote in the House expected shortly, Bill C-5 is poised to become law by Canada Day. Conservatives made it more transparent, more accountable and more secure. We stood up for taxpayers, we shut the back door to insider influence and we forced the government to answer for its overreach. Conservatives made Bill C-5 better, but many challenges remain. Canada is falling behind because we make it too hard to build, too hard to work across provinces and too hard to trade within our own borders. Canada has everything the world wants and needs; we need to address what is holding us back.

Bill C-5 takes a small step forward. Is it enough? No. Is it the right direction for a change? Yes, and that is why we will not hold up this modicum of progress. We are the party of building, and so we will not stop fighting for real change. We will hold the government to account for what gets done for the results. We will keep fighting for what really matters: paycheques, productivity, and a future that unleashes Canada's great potential for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, page 1 of the Liberal Party election platform made it very clear that we want to have one Canadian economy. The Prime Minister has delivered on that commitment to Canadians.

By July 1, because we will be passing the legislation in the next couple of hours, we will have an opportunity and a framework that are going to enable and complement things such as the first ministers' meeting that the Prime Minister had with all the premiers, the first ministers, and there were a lot of good discussions that took place. Premiers of all political stripes are on board. The national government needed to step up, and we have stepped up with a new Prime Minister and a new administration.

My question for the member is this: How would he reflect on the overall team Canada approach that was clearly demonstrated at the first ministers' meeting just two weeks ago?

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

Mr. Speaker, are we going to have free trade in Canada and the $200-billion opportunity by Canada Day? No, we are not. There is a framework, but there is a lot to do. We just heard the minister's speech, and a number of things are still going to happen in July, with a meeting of the minds and convening, which is something the Liberal government is very good at, but we are not seeing action.

If we want to talk about a team Canada approach, I would remind the member for Winnipeg North that the premier of my province, Premier Ford, has been one of the premiers who have called for the scrapping of Bill C-69, as I have indicated, which is one of the impediments to building things. It is going to stop them from building projects in Ontario as well.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Windsor West, we are proud of Trisha Haldar, a grade 8 student from Bellewood Public School who just won Canada's top science prize for inventing a tool to help families understand dangerous drug interactions. Her project was inspired by her love for her grandmother, and it is a reminder of how bright and capable young Canadians are.

Meanwhile, the government's Bill C-5 would bury billions in new spending with little transparency. As there is no budget being tabled, it would hike our national debt and there would be no meaningful investment in the next generation of innovators like Trisha.

If a 13-year-old in Windsor can solve real problems with a great science project, what is my colleague's view on the government's failure to table a budget that would help real Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, there are very bright people in Windsor and in southwestern Ontario. A 13-year-old has figured it out. It is a shame that this 13-year-old cannot have the future in Canada that she should be able to aspire to because of the policies of the last 10 years of the government.

The Liberals are not going to be tabling a budget this session, which is ending today. We are going to have to wait for the fall. No budget equals no plan. The man with the plan has not delivered a plan at all.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a misunderstanding about what nation building is. In fact, this bill has been called a fast track to the Supreme Court, meaning no building of the economy and no new jobs.

I am wondering why the Conservatives are supporting a bill that is going to spend more time holding up projects in the courts than getting things done on the ground.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre was with us at committee and had a chance to ask questions of witnesses as well. I share some of the skepticism she has about some of the answers we received from ministers, for sure.

As I said, we believe Bill C-5 is a small step in the right direction, but there is still much to be desired. We did, of course, add amendments that added a number of pieces of legislation the government cannot circumvent. One of them was the Indian Act, and there were other things. Otherwise, the government would have been handed a completely blank cheque and an absurd amount of power to run roughshod over federal legislation.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill C-5.

I would first like to thank my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for all the work he has done, despite the challenges posed by situation resulting from the gag order. He has worked with the Bloc Québécois as our constituents expect us to work in the House, that is, with the thoroughness and transparency.

Transparency is precisely one of the issues I would like to address today with regard to Bill C-5. In fact, there are two issues I would like to address: the fact that this bill would exempt proponents of major projects from laws and an ethical issue, which I will address in the second part of my speech.

Clearly, the Bloc Québécois does not support Bill C-5. I am going to repeat what some of my colleagues have said, because it is important. Imposing this gag order is one of the most serious attacks on democracy since the Emergency Measures Act, which replaced the War Measures Act. The government has decided to circumvent democracy.

No matter who was elected here, I do not believe that voters want to see their MP support a bill that seeks to circumvent the democratic process. I am not talking about the gag order here, but rather about the bill itself, which allows the democratic process to be circumvented and its means, powers and possibilities to be stripped. As I said already, once a project is designated in the national interest, its developer will be able to circumvent any federal statute or regulation. That is huge. The decision of what is in the national interest lies in the hands of one individual. However, I note in passing that “national interest” has not been defined yet. What does national interest mean? What falls in that murky category? This is, indeed, also a matter of murkiness.

Of course, now, we are trying to protect various statutes by proposing amendments to the bill. I myself tabled an amendment to exclude the Canada Labour Code from the list of statutes and regulations. I must say the list seemed infinite. It includes the Fisheries Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Impact Assessment Act, the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the marine mammal regulations, the port authorities operations regulations and more.

These are all statutes that we will be able to circumvent. Of course, "we" excludes the person speaking. However, these laws protect the population as a whole, be they Quebeckers or Canadians, by guaranteeing that projects respect the principle of the common good. Bill C-5 actually does away with those guarantees. These laws were duly voted on, considered and debated, yet we are being told that they basically have no purpose, because Bill C‑5 is above those laws. In fact, the expression I just used, "to be above the law", summarizes exactly, perhaps even to my surprise, what Bill C‑5 is proposing.

I would also like to point out that clause 21 remains, despite the Bloc Québécois's request to remove the schedule from the bill, which was rejected. Clause 21 allows the government, by a simple order in council, to exempt proponents from the application of any law, no matter which one. That is also very concerning. Federally regulated businesses have just been protected under the Official Languages Act. Just imagine the Income Tax Act or the Criminal Code. The entire text of the bill, including the schedules, allows for exempting major proponents from laws that have been duly passed by the House of Commons.

That is the first item I wanted to talk about. In my opinion, a law that supercedes all other laws leads to opaque and arbitrary decisions, which is unacceptable. That brings up the subject of ethics. What is opaque and arbitrary is the opposite of what is ethical and of what our constituents expect. What they want is transparency. What they want is accountability. What they want is to have a say. That is what democracy is all about.

That is not what is happening with Bill C‑5, however. In its present form, the bill allows the government to consider and evaluate the projects according to five evaluation criteria. One criterion is whether the project could “strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security”. The criterion of whether the project could “provide economic or other benefits to Canada” is very broad. Being feasible is also very broad. The criterion of whether the project considers “the interests of Indigenous peoples” theoretically protects the Indian Act, but what about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Considering interests is not at all prescriptive; it sounds optional. As for projects that “contribute to clean growth” and to meeting Canada's climate change objectives, it is very clear that the stated criteria or objectives are not necessarily the ones the government wants to apply. We all see how much backpedalling our theoretically new government is doing in that regard.

The minister can actually ignore those criteria entirely. It is like they are trying to convince us that we will be protected by guardrails of some kind, but the fact is, they do not even have to pay attention to those guardrails and that, too, is unacceptable. Once a project is designated as being in the national interest, the minister can issue approvals at every stage, and no one will be privy to the nature of the projects or the conditions they have to satisfy. After that, there is no turning back, which is unbelievable. Projects will be approved in advance behind closed doors, and the public will not know a thing. The decision will already be final. The government says that there can be consultations or discussions afterward, but the fact is, the decision will have already been made. I know this will not be the first time the government has held consultations after making decisions, but this is still a very big deal. The text of the bill is very clear. Consultation may happen, but whatever the government wants to do will be done. We will just have to live with the consequences of decisions made behind closed doors.

Closed doors, stupidity, selfishness and personal interests are things that humans are familiar with. When people make hasty decisions or buy shares in a company, for example, they tend to forget that, in fact, they we should be serving is the common interest, not their personal interests. I am not saying that that is necessarily what is happening, but it is a strong possibility. Everything is hidden. How can we know whether everything is being done properly and in accordance with the will of the people?

I will give one last example: the Brookfield issue. We know that the Prime Minister has a stake in Brookfield. I would like to point out that Brookfield owns railway lines, which are covered by Bill C‑5. Brookfield owns natural gas processing plants, which are covered by Bill C‑5. Pipelines are covered by Bill C‑5. Companies that design, build and operate nuclear power plants are covered by Bill C‑5. The oil sands are covered by Bill C‑5. Port facilities are covered by Bill C‑5. In my opinion, while I am not saying that there is a conflict of interest, there is at the very least an appearance of a potential ethical breach. Bill C‑5 opens the door wide to this type of situation, which the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes.

I touched on only two things in my speech, but they are two things that I am sure the people in my riding and the people of Quebec would disagree with. The government's lack of transparency and decision to grant itself all the powers without an informed debate and vote are unacceptable.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, less than two months ago, we received a clear mandate in the last election. One of the challenges is putting some major projects on the table. The Prime Minister has met with the premiers of the provinces and territories. The goal is to put major projects on the table.

In Quebec, there is a lot of talk about Hydro-Québec, connectivity and connecting Quebec with Newfoundland and Labrador. If I am not mistaken, the Hydro-Québec project will be very close to my colleague's riding. I think that it would have a significant positive economic impact.

I would like to know how my colleague will support the bill. She said earlier that she wanted to support the people, and she talked about how she would vote given that she represents her constituents.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the north shore produces more electricity than any other administrative region in Quebec and, I believe, more than any other place in Canada.

However, the Government of Quebec has never received a penny from the federal government for Hydro-Québec. We never needed federal government help for that, not then or now. I think that my riding is doing just fine without federal involvement in Hydro-Québec. We do not need Bill C‑5 to build hydroelectric plants.

If the government really wants to look into what goes on in my neck of the woods, I would point out that some people in my riding live in areas where there are no roads, no docks, no air transportation and no bridges for getting home. They live on islands, and they are isolated. It would be an excellent idea to look into that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member had a great speech, and she has concerns, which I share with her, concerning transparency. We know that there are some issues with the Prime Minister with regard to his disclosure and the conflict of interest reports.

I am just wondering what her constituents think about the lack of transparency from the government. We know that there will not even be a public list of projects that are in the national interest.

How can she go back to her constituents to say that the government is listening to the people when she knows full well that there is no transparency?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the government is not being transparent but, unless I am mistaken, I believe that my colleague's party wishes to vote in favour of the bill. To me, that is one and the same. It does not matter which side someone is on if everyone votes the same way and there is no transparency. I see no difference there.

I would like to ask my colleague the same question. Why is he voting in favour of the bill if he believes there is no transparency?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is always very thoughtful, careful and professional.

I would like her, as the Bloc Québécois critic for labour, to say a few words about the fact that the government, in its original proposal, did not exempt the Canada Labour Code from the application of the bill. The work of the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, with the support of my colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, ensured that an amendment was proposed to exclude the Canada Labour Code from the bill.

According to her, why did the government keep it in and wait for us to propose an amendment?

Why did it not occur to the government that it should not touch this legislation?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate my colleague's thoroughness and the relevance of her comments.

I would respond that that question also occurred to me. Why did the government forget? Why did it make such a list, to which nearly any law could be added because of the possibilities that are included in the bill itself?

I think it was written quickly. They also want the House to pass it quickly and they do not want to consult anyone. I am proud that the Bloc Québécois has been able to defend certain aspects. For example, we talked about the Canada Labour Code because the unions themselves wondered about it. I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that the unions support it, but the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, came out and said no, it did not support the bill.

People need to be consulted. The government should not be imposing closure.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about the one Canadian economy act, which seeks to build a stronger, more competitive and more resilient Canadian economy. I am also here to talk about our intention to identify, defend and complete projects of national interest for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I will also talk about the measures to eliminate trade barriers in order to unlock our full economic potential and make Canada stronger both nationally and internationally.

These measures were at the heart of the commitment we made to Canadians during the election. We were clear and transparent. In our platform, we talked about creating one Canadian economy, not 13. To do that, we have to start by getting rid of internal trade barriers. During the election campaign, we also talked about implementing projects of national interest.

Over the past few days, I have been a little taken aback to hear opposition members express their surprise at what Bill C‑5 contains. Our intentions were clear, written down in black and white. During the election campaign and afterward, we said time and again that we wanted to strengthen and unify the Canadian economy. Over 8.5 million people across the country voted for our ambitious plan to strengthen and unify the Canadian economy. That is the most votes any political party has ever received in a Canadian federal election.

What comes as a bit of a surprise to my opposition colleagues is how quickly we are moving to meet Canadians' expectations. After only four weeks in the House, we have put in place concrete measures, through Bill C‑5, to strengthen internal trade and make it easier to carry out major national interest projects. This is on top of other measures, including a tax cut for Canadian families and historic investments in defence. I think that what surprises the opposition even more is our determination and our ability to take concrete measures to strengthen our economy and deliver on our commitment to the Canadian people.

A lot of the response to Bill C‑5 has been very positive. For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has stated that now is the time for bold action to ensure we stop holding up nation-building projects. I myself organized a meeting with the chambers of commerce in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, and I can say that people are very interested in the various legislative measures we have introduced over the past month here in Ottawa.

I understand their enthusiasm, because this is a hinge moment in our nation's history. The world is changing rapidly. The rules of the global economy are being rewritten, particularly because of the tariffs and disruptive trade actions coming out of the United States. We did not ask for a trade war, but one thing has become clear: We will do whatever it takes to build long-term prosperity for Canadians, and we will do it on our own terms. We can no longer take stability and access to global markets for granted. In order to secure good jobs for workers, improve our standard of living and keep life affordable, we need to quickly strengthen our economic foundations here at home. It is important to understand that the best way to make life more affordable for Canadians is to get to work building a strong Canadian economy that can sustain programs that save families thousands of dollars a year.

Building a strong economy means unlocking our country's full potential and getting past the red tape and duplication that have held us back for too long. It is time to transform the way we do business as a nation. Bill C‑5 lays out our government's clear intention to proactively identify and advance projects in the national interest that will propel Canada into the next era. These projects will stimulate economic growth, strengthen energy security and supply chains and create long-term sustainable jobs. Once we determine that a project is in the national interest, it will go ahead right away, not 10 years from now. There will be a one-and-done federal approval process. The current system of overlapping barriers and reviews will be replaced with a clear path forward.

We urgently need to do things quickly, but there is more to it than that. We also need to demonstrate clarity, confidence and Canadian leadership on the world stage. We need to send a clear signal to investors that Canada is committed to seeing projects through to completion. That is why our government will set up a new federal major projects office, which will serve as a single window for proponents and partners, consolidating work that was once done by several organizations.

The new major federal project office will act like the biggest infrastructure hub in Canada, a hub to guide every project with clarity, reliability and transparency through the federal process. Instead of getting lost in a government maze, developers will have a single point of contact tasked with reporting to Canadians on the progress made. This will make the “one project, one assessment” approach real—another commitment that was at the heart of what we promised to Canadians during the last election. That means fewer administrative formalities, more certainty and better results, not just for investors, but also for workers, communities, indigenous peoples and the environment.

The time of endless debate on determining whether projects should get built is behind us. For the projects that meet our strict criteria, the question instead will be: How are we going to build and how fast can we unlock the benefits for Canadians?

Thanks to this bill, once a project is declared in the national interest, we will provide a single, consolidated document on the federal conditions that will replace years of work on permits, reviews and regulatory uncertainty. That is what the industry, developers and the provinces asked us for. That is what this moment calls for. This will be accompanied by a clear consultation that the indigenous peoples will participate in and a commitment to always protect our natural environment.

No other G7 country is progressing as decisively as Canada. Bill C-5 marks the end of a culture of delay. We are a government that is defined by living up to expectations. As a new member, I am proud to be part of this new government led by our new Prime Minister.

Let me be clear. Our determination to build does not mean abandoning our values—quite the opposite. In fact, our vision can only succeed if it reflects those values. I am thinking of values such as partnership with indigenous peoples, respect for the environment and responsible stewardship for future generations. Every project of national interest will involve significant consultation with indigenous communities. This is the only way to build with legitimacy and unlock generational economic opportunities that are inclusive and sustainable. We have already committed—not just with words, but with tangible policies—to economic reconciliation, including doubling funding for the indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion. It supports indigenous ownership and ensures that the prosperity generated by nation-building projects can also benefit indigenous communities today and for the long term.

When it comes to protecting the environment, Bill C-5 does not undermine Canada's world-class protections. It asks a simple question: How do we build big projects responsibly? From consultation requirements to robust permit conditions to ambitious climate goals, our projects will set the new global standard for responsible development.

We are not here to manage the decline. That is not how we do things in Canada. We are here to seize opportunities. We are here to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, thanks to this bill. My conversations with my constituents and with Canadians across the country have led me to believe there is no challenge Canadians cannot overcome if we work together, as one team, one economy, in one big, united country.

The one Canadian economy bill and its approach of developing projects of national interest are an invitation to rebuild with intention, pride and hope. Let us seize this moment. Let us rise to the expectations of this generation and leave an even better country for the next. Let us work together to build a strong Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we are happy when any project finally gets built in this country, after 10 years of the Liberal government trying to stop everything, but this is an example of the Liberal government causing problems and creating a new program to try to fix them.

Why would the member not just tell his caucus to please just scrap Bill C-69 and Bill C-48?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we were elected with a clear mandate in the last election. It is a mandate to achieve great things, to be bold and ambitious in responding to the challenges of our time. Bill C-5 is in keeping with this spirit.

With Bill C-5, we will be able to move forward more quickly on projects of national interest. This is consistent with the “one project, one review” approach. We understand that we must act now to strengthen the Canadian economy, unify it to create good jobs, stimulate the economy and make Canada's economy the strongest in the G7.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the passionate speech from my colleague across the aisle, and I congratulate him as he is just starting out as a new member of the House.

He just mentioned the “one project, one assessment” approach on environmental matters.

Today, the Premier of Quebec reiterated to the Prime Minister of Canada that projects must be determined based on Quebec's recommendations and that the only environmental assessment must be Quebec's assessment.

What does my colleague think of what the Quebec premier is calling for?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the government will have a legal obligation to act in accordance with the purpose of the act and to expedite projects of national interest, while maintaining rigorous environmental standards and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples.

Projects that will be subject to an impact assessment will be reviewed by existing regulatory agencies to identify the conditions necessary to protect Canadians and the environment. The designated minister must consult with other relevant ministers as well as provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to ensure that these conditions are sufficient.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his lively and vibrant speech.

Since my colleague is from New Brunswick, I would like to know what he thinks about this. One of the bill's goals is to remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility.

What does his riding in New Brunswick expect to gain from the major change that this bill is expected to bring?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

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

I consulted the chambers of commerce in my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, and I talked with people. We clearly want less red tape. We want to facilitate internal trade, especially given the uncertainty surrounding trade with the United States. My riding has a long border with our southern neighbour and five ports of entry. Our economy is quite heavily integrated with the U.S. economy.

A bill like this one is very appealing to business owners in my riding. It facilitates access to markets in other Canadian provinces and makes it easer for them to sell their products and services.

It is certainly being very well received and my region, like many others across the country, expects it to generate significant economic benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the Liberal culture of delay. In my experience, it takes a long time to change a culture. It takes time. It takes more than words, spoken or written. Culture changes through action.

What action are you going to take? It takes time.