Bill C-48 (Historical)

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast

This enactment enacts the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which prohibits oil tankers that are carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil as cargo from stopping, or unloading crude oil or persistent oil, at ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska border. The Act prohibits loading if it would result in the oil tanker carrying more than 12 500 metric tons of those oils as cargo.
The Act also prohibits vessels and persons from transporting crude oil or persistent oil between oil tankers and those ports or marine installations for the purpose of aiding the oil tanker to circumvent the prohibitions on oil tankers.
Finally, the Act establishes an administration and enforcement regime that includes requirements to provide information and to follow directions and that provides for penalties of up to a maximum of five million dollars.

Natural Resources

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has been six months and the so-called new Liberal government seems like it is the same as the old one. At first, the Prime Minister sounded different from Justin Trudeau, but we are finding, as time goes by, that the Liberals are using the same old Liberal playbook. He hinted about a fast track to build a pipeline. What actually happened? He created a major project bureaucracy instead to try to fast-track big projects. Not a single pipeline is on the major projects list, as the Liberals have reannounced previous projects that are already under construction. They kept in place bad anti-energy policies from the Trudeau era: Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax, to name a few.

Enbridge, a Canadian energy company, is building a $700-million pipeline project. The problem is that it is not in Canada. It is in the United States of America.

Canadians will have to wait for a Conservative government to support our world-class energy sector that will cut bad Liberal policies, build a strong economy to get the job done and restore the promise of our great country.

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate having the opportunity this evening to speak about the metastasizing unemployment crisis that is facing this country. We have seen over the course of the summer that new reports demonstrate a continuously worsening situation, although I think it is important to say as well that this is the continuation of a three-year trend. It is not as if things were rosy and then all of a sudden unemployment got bad; this is the continuation of a running trend of worsening employment numbers. The unemployment rate overall is at 7.1%.

Things are getting worse for people of all ages. I want to be clear that it is not only young people who are facing this challenge, but it is particularly acute for them. The employment rate for young people in Canada is now at a more-than-25-year low. We have to go back to before the year 2000, which I think is three Liberal prime ministers ago, to find a situation where the youth employment rate was lower than it is now outside of the acute phase of the COVID pandemic. We are clearly in a situation where, for young people, we are already at recession levels of employment. This is a concern for many reasons. It is a concern because of the pain that young people are experiencing. The combination of housing being so difficult to access, out of reach for most, and a situation where employment is increasingly out of reach is leading to a lot of frustration and even despondency in the next generation.

Adding to that, youth unemployment, I think, is an indicator of broader problems in the economy. When companies are pessimistic about the future, their first step is not to let go of senior staff but to not give as many opportunities to those who are just entering the workforce. I think that is a reality, so the youth unemployment rate is a concern in its own right and also for what it indicates about the health of the economy.

We see also how the cost of living crisis is contributing to the unemployment situation. The latest report from Statistics Canada outlines how more people are working multiple jobs because they need the extra money to get by. More people are asking for additional hours from their employer, again because they need the income to pay for basic expenses. The fact that people are struggling because of the cost of living crisis is contributing to more pressure on the labour market, so we have these interconnected, compounding problems. This really is the outworking of a number of different policy failures.

For 10 years we have had a Liberal government that has not been able to support the moving forward of major infrastructure projects that our economy needs. It has put in place Bill C-48, Bill C-69, a production cap and an industrial carbon tax; these policies are blocking development that would help young people get to work. We have seen increasing red tape and other barriers put in front of small businesses that make it harder for them to do business in Canada and to create jobs for young people. We have seen immigration failures, and that is why Conservatives have proposed essential reforms, so that young people can get back to work. We see policy failures contributing to the cost of living crisis, as well as poor alignment with respect to training policy. Many different policy failures have led to the situation.

We need to see a plan from the government, a plan that involves reversing some of these failures. Where is the plan?

Regional Economic Development

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government promised nation-building projects, including building the green energy corridor. It has all the tools required, yet nothing has been built in the past six months, and the only projects announced are the ones already under way.

The people of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador want to see action from the Liberal government. An energy corridor would connect Labrador to the rest of the country without other provinces taking the icing and the cake and leaving my province with the crumbs. The government will not repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the production caps or the industrial carbon tax. It will not even commit to its own promise of building an energy corridor from sea to sea.

It is time for the Liberal government to get out of its own way, stop breaking its promises and use the tools it has, because it is time to get to work.

Economic Development

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians still pay the price for the lost, anti-development Liberal decade. Six months ago, to get elected, the Prime Minister promised to put shovels in the ground on big projects at unimaginable speeds, but what Canadians got was the same old Liberal bait and switch, photo ops and more bureaucracy, because the PM is just another Liberal.

The Liberals say five projects have made their secret list so far, some already approved and some already being built, but there is not a single pipeline to create Canadian jobs with Canadian steel and pay for programs that all Canadians want.

Conservatives worked to improve and pass Bill C-5, but it is not enough to get back the $60 billion that left Canada due to Liberal red tape. Bill C-5 admits that the Liberals' own laws blocked building. They must scrap the “no new pipelines, never build anything anywhere” Bill C-69; the shipping ban, Bill C-48; Canadian energy censorship; the Liberal oil and gas cap; and the federal industrial carbon tax so Canada can compete.

Conservatives want to unleash natural resources to make a strong, united Canada self-reliant, affordable—

One Canadian Economy Act

[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?

[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.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 proves one thing for certain: The Liberals broke the system, and Canadians pay the price. An unprecedented $5 trillion of Canadian capital went south and into other countries, and they killed $670 billion in major natural resource projects that could have been built by Canadians with Canadian aluminum and steel for Canada's economic strength, self-reliance, security and unity. In five years alone, 16 major projects were sidelined because of them. It cost Canadians over $176 billion in lost nuclear, critical mineral mines, LNG terminals, pipelines, indigenous-led projects and energy corridors delayed or derailed by lawsuits, bureaucracy, delay and Liberal policies.

Imagine how powerful and self-reliant Canada would be today. Instead, Canada ranks last in the G7 for development, and the Liberals now scramble to patch what they themselves destroyed. Bill C-5 would not fix the fundamentals. It admits failure, with hundreds of thousands of Canadian job losses and more to come, unaffordable power and fuel, and skyrocketing costs of essentials. What the Liberals have to do is what the Conservatives said all along. They should scrap Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the federal industrial carbon tax, the Canadian oil and gas cap and all their other antidevelopment policies and laws.

Proponents today still face unclear rules, no concrete timelines, interference and limited transparency. As the transport minister said herself in committee, “we have come to a place in Canada where we have such a thicket of processes, rules and regulations...that we are unable to build with the alacrity that this moment in time requires.” It is not during just this current moment that major projects cannot get built in Canada with brisk and cheerful readiness. That has been the worsening reality of the last decade of Liberal antidevelopment laws, policies and messages. That dense, cumbersome thicket was created by the very same government that claims to be new while half the ministers are the old ones.

Conservatives offer real solutions: to cut red tape, gatekeepers and taxes; to create clear rules; to attract private investment; and to fast-track major projects for the benefit of all Canadians. The place the Liberals should start is with all the projects stuck in the federal queue right now, such as the Ksi Lisims LNG project, LNG Canada phase two and Bruce Power upgrades, and they should be looking at the dedicated west coast export pipeline to serve Asian energy demand that they killed 10 years ago and indigenous-backed roads to unlock the Ring of Fire. They are in the national interest, and they are waiting for a green light. They should be on the national interest list and fast-tracked yesterday.

Nevertheless, Conservatives worked in good faith with other opposition parties and with the Liberals to help improve Bill C-5, and here I want to thank the Conservative team for all its efforts. It will be up to the Liberals to deliver on their rhetoric and to keep up all their big, but vague, promises to Canadians. It will ultimately be up to Canadians to determine whether they do, and Conservatives will hold them accountable in the meantime.

Even now, Bill C-5 sets up a politically driven and determined process. Ministers will decide who goes ahead and who waits. They can even one day decide a project that they said was in the national interest earlier is no longer and remove it from the list or whatever ad hoc review a responsible minister determines. This is a problem I tried to fix: inherent uncertainty, huge powers behind closed doors and not a permanent fix or way to regulate and review projects in the sector most important to Canada's economy, imperative to help turn poverty into prosperity and to help lower emissions globally.

Bill C-5 blurs the lines, just as Bill C-69 did. What is worse is that the Liberals know it. At committee, the Canada-U.S. trade minister admitted, quote, whoever puts forward these projects, be they public, private, indigenous, provincial or municipal, does not have to go through an evaluation and approvals process that could take five to six years. He admits the Liberal system takes years and delays building. It is not clear whether projects that are actually in provincial or municipal jurisdiction may end up in the Bill C-5 queue for a federal review, which would be a similar overreach problem to that in Bill C-69. The mix of public and private infrastructure should cause taxpayers to take notice too, but again the obvious first step should be to fix that whole evaluations and approvals process the minister himself says is too long.

Proponents and the government itself are trapped by the red tape they imposed. Still, Bill C-5 does not fix it for everyone; it will fast-track a chosen few. At first, it did not even define “national interest”, which left every decision to the whims of cabinet and a lack of clarity for everyone involved, but Conservatives fought to require the government to define national interest with clear, specific criteria. We succeeded in adding that necessary clarity and structure to a process that started with none.

Conservatives also successfully incorporated the requirement of a public list of national interest projects, with timelines, estimated costs and rationale; application of the Conflict of Interest Act to officials and proponents to prevent abuse and prevent politically connected insiders from pursuing personal profit over the public interest behind closed doors; mandatory national security reviews for hostile regimes and state-owned investments into major national interest projects to combat foreign interference and economic imperialism from adversaries and to protect Canadian sovereignty and security; a requirement for the government to fully deliver on its mandatory duty to consult and a clear map for indigenous consultation, with public reporting to build trust, earn confidence and respect indigenous rights and title so that major projects can get to yes in a good way, with minimization of predictable court challenges and delays; and annual independent reviews of project progress so all Canadians can measure the Liberals by their actions, not just their words, and hold them accountable.

These amendments matter. They bring transparency, accountability, more certainty, more clarity and integrity to a bill that originally had none.

However, even with these improvements, major concerns remain. Bill C-5 would still allow ministers the power to remove a project from the national interest list at any time, without notice, reason or recourse. I proposed to remove the power to take projects off the list once they make the cut, because that uncertainty may continue to push investors and builders to other countries with clearer rules and more predictability, just as the Liberals have done to Canada for the past decade.

Since delay is death to major projects, Conservatives also aimed to give concrete timelines that do not actually exist in Bill C-5, despite all the Liberals' claims about a two-year process. I proposed a one-year deadline to issue permits once a project is designated; a 90-day limit for the Governor in Council, the cabinet, to make final decisions; and a requirement to prioritize private or public-private funding to protect taxpayers, to prioritize private funding. Canada should be a place where the private sector can take big risks and build big things on its time and on its dime, not where taxpayers have to be on the hook to get anything done.

The Liberals rejected those amendments.

Then I brought forward an amendment to apply the Conflict of Interest Act to enforce clearer safeguards to prevent corruption and block Liberals from stacking the deck in favour of their friends. This should not be necessary, of course, but we have a Prime Minister who hides his conflicts and where he pays his taxes, and who ran to make the company Brookfield invested in all the kinds of projects that Bill C-5 would fast-track, although under the Prime Minister, it mostly invested in the U.S. and abroad. This caused a flurry and a huddle among Liberal MPs, a couple of odd questions, and then the Liberals voted against it. Thanks to Conservative pressure and support from another opposition party, we forced the government to follow its own laws designed to prevent corruption and to put the public interest ahead of partisanship.

Conservatives also got limits put on cabinet to prevent it from exempting 15 foundational laws that no government should ever sidestep. All Canadians can be forgiven for wondering why the Liberals would have presented such a potentially significant law free from all of those laws in the first place. Conservatives pushed crucial amendments to ensure provincial consultation and to protect provincial jurisdiction and provincial decision-making power, because what the Liberals must show is that they can ensure big projects in federal jurisdiction can be built for Canada's economic strength, security and national unity, not meddle in others. They have to find a will, a spine, a set that they have failed to show in the past decade in order to enforce their own jurisdiction, to treat the national interest approvals according to the general advantage of Canada and to uphold legal and jurisdictional certainty so that proponents can build their projects when approvals face challenges and obstruction. Otherwise, this will all be big talk and a lot of delays without fixing the real problems, which are the antidevelopment laws and policies the Liberals themselves decided they needed this queue-jumping Bill C-5 to work around.

Conservatives' work continues today, with subamendments to clarify and fix flaws. We proposed a parliamentary committee with a nongovernment Chair. No government should judge its own actions. Democratic accountability anchors this principle, so the subamendment strengthens review with independent, balanced representation across parties. Canadians expect transparency, not spectacle. They expect real checks, not blanket approval.

Canada holds vast potential. Natural resources, energy and infrastructure sustain millions of jobs, fund public services, build communities and bolster global trade. Any bill for national development must reflect this reality and champion, not hinder, the sectors that drive prosperity. Canadians need an approach that does not curb ambition, repel investment or deny opportunity. Canada cannot tolerate a framework that casts resource development as a threat rather than a strength. Canada demands confidence, not caution, and momentum, not paralysis.

Conservatives champion responsible resource development, independent oversight and a united Canada, and our amendments to Bill C-5 uphold those values. Conservatives believe in strong paycheques and unity through opportunity, not division and double standards through federal overreach. We believe in reconciliaction through—

Oil and Gas Industry

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's number one export is oil. It is a source of prosperity and provides for health care, infrastructure and good-paying jobs, yet 10 years of Liberal anti-energy laws have kept pipelines from being built and have kept us dependent upon the U.S. markets, with laws like Bill C-69, the no new pipelines act; Bill C-48, the shipping ban; the energy production cap; and the industrial carbon tax. Energy companies will not build, because of these laws.

When will the Liberals finally end their war on Canadian energy and jobs?

The Economy

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian oil and gas is the key to our prosperity. Ten years of Liberal anti-energy laws have kept it in the ground and stopped pipelines from getting built, including laws like Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” act; Bill C-48, the shipping ban; the oil and gas production cap; and the industrial carbon tax. It is impossible to ignore the national consensus to get rid of these bad Liberal laws.

There was an election this spring in which the Prime Minister promised big things. Then we heard fancy speeches from him in Calgary. He also met with the premiers in Saskatoon. Parliament has already been sitting for four weeks. We just hosted the G7 meetings in Alberta with key energy allies, yet we still have not seen any announcements for new projects or proposals.

The Prime Minister needs to stop with the fancy words and act on repealing the Liberal anti-energy policies immediately. Canadians need a government that will approve energy infrastructure, sell to our allies and deliver paycheques to our people. Now that the Prime Minister's elbows are clearly down, it is time for him to stand up and get back to work.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in this short parliamentary session, we are rushing through legislation to temporarily, partially, perhaps, override the very laws that have defined the Liberal government's decade-long war on development. Let us name them: Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” act; Bill C-48, the tanker ban; the oil and gas production cap; and the industrial carbon tax. These laws have made Canada one of the slowest-growing economies in the developed world. Now, as we host the G7, our allies are still asking why Canada cannot get anything built.

The government's latest response is Bill C-5, which is a patchwork fix for which they hope no one notices the mess underneath. Selectively overriding laws is a fake approach.

Here is the real solution: Repeal these anti-energy laws, approve energy projects, create jobs and build again. Let us stop pretending and start delivering stronger paycheques and a better future for Canadians.

One Canadian Economy Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great humility that I rise today for my first speech in the House of Commons. I would like to use this opportunity to thank my constituents of Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk for electing me to represent them here. I am honoured to have earned their trust and to serve as their voice in our nation's Parliament. I would also like to thank my team for their dedication throughout my campaign and my family for their unwavering support in this new chapter.

The riding is a vast and diverse region, rich in natural resources, strong culture heritage and resilient communities, and I am committed to ensuring their voices are heard and their priorities are upheld.

Over the last Liberal decade, our economy has experienced the worst economic growth in the G7. We have become more dependent on the United States, and the buying power of our workers' paycheques has declined because Liberal laws have blocked resource development.

Despite having the most resources per capita of any country on earth, we continue to fall short of our economic potential. The recent tariffs from the United States have turned this problem into a full-fledged crisis, one that underscores the urgent need to rebuild economic prosperity for all Canadians. The Prime Minister has recently introduced Bill C-5. A very small number of interprovincial barriers would be eliminated by this bill, which is better than nothing, but tens of billions of dollars of obstacles at the provincial level would remain untouched.

In my professional experience as a forestry executive and through my 45 years of work in the forestry and mining sectors across northeastern Ontario, I have seen first-hand the barriers that stand in the way of productivity, investment and opportunity. Bill C-5, in its current form, fails to meaningfully address or eliminate such barriers. It is not the economic breakthrough the Liberal government wants Canadians to believe it is. Rather, it is a minor baby step and a missed opportunity to reach independence and self-reliance.

Bill C‑5 does not actually address the structural issues that are holding back Canada's economic development. Although the bill does not propose anything that slows down free trade or infrastructure projects, it lacks a practical vision for adapting to our current situation.

For those listening at home, Bill C-5 is split into two parts. The first part is about free trade and labour exchange across Canada. The second part is about projects deemed to be in the national interest, which will have their approval process streamlined by reporting to one point of contact. It includes provisions for the federal government to determine whether a major project is in the national interest based on consultation with provinces, territories and indigenous people.

Despite its ambitions, Bill C-5 falls incredibly short of delivering true free trade and getting major projects built quickly. There are simply too many fault points in Bill C-5 for us to accept the bill in its current state.

Bill C-5 does not present any concrete timelines. It does not provide for a public list of priority projects and it lacks clarity, and yet these key elements are essential to ensuring speed, accountability and public trust in the process. Without those safeguards, the bill cannot achieve its objectives or live up to Canadians' expectations.

The Liberals' own laws are barriers to development, and this bill is an admission to that. There is a way to fast-track unleashing Canadian resources. It is to remove the Liberal antidevelopment laws that block projects in first place, such as Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the oil and gas cap, and the industrial carbon tax.

This bill, like many of the Liberal government's bills, reflects a limited approach and reinforces the idea that maintaining its restrictive legislation is hampering much-needed economic growth.

Canada has 28 projects stuck in federal review, in nuclear, uranium, mining, oil and gas, hydro and roads to unlock critical minerals. Those are real projects with real proponents. By the Liberals' own argument, the obvious place to start, which would not even require legislation, would be to fast-track those assessments and approvals.

Look at what is already being done south of the border in the United States. The U.S. approves major energy projects, such as oil, gas, critical minerals and uranium, on federal lands in as few as 28 days.

The Liberals now promise a two-year timeline, where Conservatives proposed a one-year maximum wait time for approvals, with a target of six months for projects of national importance, and to also uphold the duty to consult and actually get projects built.

The Liberal government needs to get with the times. If it really wants to make Canada truly self-reliant and competitive with the U.S., we need to actually compete. The world is becoming only more chaotic and fast-paced. We need realistic times to deliver our projects, or we risk staying left behind. Canada has what the world needs. We need to give it to them when they need it.

The Prime Minister says this is an exceptional crisis. If that is true, why do we need to agree to a two-year wait time? In a real crisis, leadership calls for urgent action. Two years is simply too long. Canada is dependent on and vulnerable to the United States. The Liberals' proposal will continue to hold Canada back and leave its resources unused in the ground.

Conservatives want Canada to compete and to achieve true economic and energy security. That means shovel-ready economic zones and scrapping the cap on Canadian oil and gas. Canadians need affordable, reliable power and fuel so Canada can be self-reliant and achieve real economic independence from the United States. The way we handle our resources lays the ground for the future of our country, a country that is self-reliant and independent, and restores the Canadian promise that anyone who works hard gets a good life in our great Canada.

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. As we saw multiple times before the campaign and after the campaign, the Prime Minister took his fake little red book and signed it like he had some sort of presidential executive powers, which he simply does not. He is trying to jam this bill through as fast as he can. If he had really wanted to do it quickly, the fastest way to do it would have been to repeal Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48, repeal Bill C-50 and remove the industrial carbon tax and the cap on energy production. That would have been the easiest thing to do.

That would have opened the door to investment and to Canadians. It would have shown them that we are open for business. However, the Liberals did not want to do that, much like Cinderella's stepmother. They want to bring people to the ball. They want them to come, but they are putting on some impossible things for them to achieve knowing they will not be able to do it. That is what Bill C-5 is doing.

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

Madam Speaker, I love the hon. member's assertion that we need to be bold, we need to be ambitious and we need to be audacious. This is not the time for Canada to be timid. We talked about this during the election campaign because of the threats coming from the United States, but this bill is anything but bold. It is anything but ambitious and audacious. It is a very timid bill because it does not repeal the things that are holding our natural resource sector and our economy at bay: Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the industrial carbon tax and other mechanisms that need to be repealed for us to be bold.

I wonder if the hon. member can comment a little more about that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, imagine that we are renovating an old house and we do not worry about the shoddy foundation, the rotted joists or floorboards and the rusted plumbing; we just hope that the new buyer does not notice that we have put some lipstick on a kind of an ugly pig. That is very similar to what the Liberals are trying to do now; they are trying to put forward legislation without dealing with the root cause of the rotten consequences of bad Liberal legislation that has gotten us into this position.

We all want the one Canadian economy act to pass. We want it to succeed. As Conservatives, we want pipelines built. We want energy projects completed. We want to see interprovincial trade barriers torn down and removed to grow Canada's economy.

It has been said many times that the most lucrative free trade Canada could have is the one we do not have within our own country, but as we walk through the process and as we listen to the Liberals, we can see that they slowly walk down on what they have promised and what they can actually deliver. Bill C-5 clearly shows that what they are promising is very different than what they would deliver.

Canadians will notice that the Liberals are building a house on a shoddy foundation, because nothing will get built unless they listen to the opposition members and make some amendments to the bill to ensure that we get things built, like repealing Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, eliminating the production cap on oil and gas and repealing the just transition, Bill C-50. Those are the things that would actually make an impactful difference to ensure that projects get built in Canada.

I want to give an example. The Prime Minister first came out saying that we are going to be building pipelines and national projects, and that we are going to have a free trade agreement in Canada by July 1. What is now being said is that we will have pipelines if there is national consensus, that the projects probably will not actually include pipelines, that provinces will have a veto and that we are not really going to have a free trade agreement by Canada Day because there is a difference between federal interprovincial free trade and provincial interprovincial free trade.

As we have a chance to look at Bill C-5, we see what is going on. I want to give an example. The Prime Minister keeps talking about how only national projects within the government's own interest would be approved, and that they must include decarbonisation of oil. What does decarbonisation of western Canadian oil and gas mean, compared especially to oil and gas imported into eastern Canada?

For example, in 2023, eastern Canada imported, on average, about 790,000 barrels of crude oil per day, valued at almost $20 billion. Those imports were from the United States, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia for the most part. By implying that western Canadian energy has to be decarbonised, it would have to be produced and transported under very different regulations, making it uncompetitive with what is imported into eastern Canada. I asked the government earlier if the same regulations and non-competitive rules would be imposed on energy imported into eastern Canada from places like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. It would not answer that question.

A renowned energy analyst, Dr. Ron Wallace said, “A federal regulatory requirement to decarbonize western Canadian crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil would render the one Canadian economy act moot and create two market realities in Canada—one that favours imports and that discourages, or at very least threatens the competitiveness of, Canadian oil export production.”

We cannot say we want to build projects and then put metrics and bars so high that Canadian energy projects and Canadian investment cannot actually reach that bar. We also cannot put the same regulatory burdens on energy imported to Canada. That is why it is so important to clear the deck. Repeal Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48 and repeal Bill C-50. Send a clear message to the private sector and foreign investment that Canada is truly open for business and that we are serious about getting these projects built.

The Supreme Court, as my colleague from Alberta said earlier, said that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional, yet the Liberals refuse to repeal it. As a result of Bill C-69, 16 major energy projects have been abandoned, worth more than $600 billion. Of the 18 LNG projects proposed by 2015, only one remains viable, LNG Canada, and that project is proceeding only because it was granted exemptions, by the Liberal government, to Bill C-69 and the carbon tax.

Meanwhile, some of our most trusted allies, Japan, Germany, Ukraine, Poland and South Korea, came to Canada asking for LNG. They want Canadian energy that is clean, affordable and sustainable, but nonsensical policies and a decision by the Liberal government forced those countries, our important allies, to go somewhere else for their energy. In fact it was one of the few times that I was embarrassed to be Canadian, when our allies, in their time of need, came to Canada for something that we could supply, that we desperately wanted to supply, and we turned our back on them.

However, those decisions by the previous Liberal government, from which most of the ministers are still on the front bench, have consequences. Germany even signed an agreement with Qatar. Japan signed an agreement with the United States, our biggest competitor when it comes to energy, and the value of that agreement is a 20-year LNG agreement with the United States valued at $200 billion annually, supporting 50,000 American jobs.

Those jobs should have been here in Canada, and that is just one LNG agreement. That $200 billion a year should have been building schools and hospitals here in Canada. The revenue from that one LNG agreement should have been helping pay down our debt and lower taxes for Canadians here in Canada, but instead that $200 billion is going to the United States.

While the Americans are creating jobs in the energy sector, the Liberals' ideological policies, by contrast, are killing jobs here at home. For example, the just transition bill, Bill C-50, will cost about 200,000 jobs in the energy sector, 290,000 jobs in agriculture and 1.4 million jobs in construction and building. In total, the just transition bill, Bill C-50, will cost Canada 2.7 million jobs.

The member for Winnipeg North asked me where I got that information from when I mentioned it last week. Well, a memo to the Minister of Natural Resources from his own department said, “The transition to a low-carbon economy will have an uneven impact across sectors, occupations and regions, and create significant labour...disruptions. We expect that larger-scale transformations will take place”. In agriculture, it will be about 292,000 workers; in energy, about 202,000 workers; in manufacturing, about 193,000 workers; in buildings and construction, 1.4 million workers; and transportation sectors, about 642,000 workers. That adds up to 13.5% of Canada's total workforce in all parts of the country. Can members imagine a piece of legislation that is going to impact 13.5% of Canada's workforce and perhaps put another 2.7 million Canadians out of work?

In contrast, the Americans are creating tens of thousands of jobs by unleashing their energy sector while we stand by and watch. In fact last fall, the Bank of Canada stated that we all see those signs that say, “In case of emergency, break glass”, and it is time for Canada to break the glass. We are saying that it is not time to take baby steps, which Bill C-5 would be doing; it is time to be bold. It is time to be disruptive. It is time to grab the opportunity that President Trump has given us.

At no time in my life as a legislator, as an elected official, have I seen Canada united, with 75% of Quebecers wanting an east-west pipeline. Canadians across this country want interprovincial trade barriers removed, and at one time they probably did not even realize what we were talking about, but they understand the impact and the potential that Canada has if we just grab it. We cannot just dance around it; we have to be bold. Bill C-5 needs to be improved, and hopefully the Liberals will listen to the opposition and take the steps that are needed to unleash Canada's potential.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, it is too cute by half to try to separate out the bigger picture with the smaller picture in Bill C-5 and what it attempts to do.

The Liberals cannot get this economy built by saying one thing today and then, in two to five years, taking it back, which Bill C-5 attempts to do. Repealing Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the industrial carbon tax, those are the real answers that last beyond two to five years, when the Liberal government may take the convenient action of just pulling Bill C-5 and having us back in uncertainty.