Bill C-5

One Canadian Economy Act

An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act

Part 1 enacts the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act , which establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada. In the case of goods and services, that Act provides that a good or service that meets provincial or territorial requirements is considered to meet comparable federal requirements that pertain to the interprovincial movement of the good or provision of the service. In the case of workers, it provides for the recognition of provincial and territorial authorizations to practise occupations and for the issuance of comparable federal authorizations to holders of such provincial and territorial authorizations. It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Building Canada Act , which, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to add the name of a project and a brief description of it to a schedule to that Act if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the project is in the national interest;
(b) provides that determinations and findings that have to be made and opinions that have to be formed under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations for an authorization to be granted in respect of a project that is named in Schedule 1 to that Act are deemed to have been made or formed, as the case may be, in favour of permitting the project to be carried out in whole or in part;
(c) requires the minister who is designated under that Act to issue to the proponent of a project, if certain conditions are met, a document that sets out conditions that apply in respect of the project and that is deemed to be the authorizations, required under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations, that are specified in the document; and
(d) requires that minister, each year, to cause an independent review to be conducted of the status of each national interest project.

One Canadian Economy Act

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

moved that Bill C‑5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Internal Trade]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is at a critical moment. U.S. tariffs are battering our country and threatening to push the world economy into a recession. Hard-working Canadians are losing their jobs, businesses are losing their customers and investors are holding back.

A few weeks ago, I travelled to Saskatoon with the Prime Minister and my colleagues, the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. We met with the premiers of the provinces and territories. We discussed our plan to strengthen Canada's economic foundations, including through a unified domestic market. We agreed that we need to work together to build Canada.

We agreed to move together quickly to get this done. That is why it is so essential for us to press ahead with a project that costs nothing and can be accomplished at the stroke of a pen: delivering free trade in Canada. According to a 2019 study by the IMF, the impact of these internal barriers is equivalent to imposing a 7% tariff barrier on ourselves.

A 2016 report by Trevor Tombe and Lukas Albrecht in the Canadian Journal of Economics found that removing all barriers to internal trade and labour mobility could lower prices in Canada by up to 15%. A 2016 study by the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce found that lifting barriers to internal trade could boost productivity by up to 7%.

Free trade in our own country makes sense. For our businesses, it means a bigger domestic market and less red tape.

For workers, this means more opportunities, more jobs, the freedom to pursue their careers anywhere in the country without barriers that penalize them, and the assurance that their qualifications will be recognized no matter where they live. This fundamental freedom to move and work will strengthen individual autonomy and the national social fabric.

Now that the LCBO is not stocking American wine, it makes more sense than ever to be sure that Nova Scotia and B.C. wines can be found on its shelves. A registered nurse qualified in Saskatchewan should be able to get right to work if her family moves to Newfoundland to be close to aging relatives. A plumbing firm in Winnipeg should as easily be able to expand to do jobs in Kenora as it can in Brandon. A trucker should be able to drive from the Halifax Harbour to the port of Vancouver without buying permits to cross between provinces and wasting precious time making technical adjustments after he rolls across each provincial line.

Freer internal trade and easier labour mobility will also help boost our housing industry, including the construction of the modular homes we need to build more homes faster and more affordably.

Ultimately, the decision to build one Canadian economy out of 13 is a decision to trust one another. It is about deciding that the delicious steak that people eat in Calgary is surely good enough to serve in Charlottetown, and that the dental hygienist whose patients in Moncton adore her can be counted on to do the same excellent work when she moves to Quebec City.

The wave of patriotism that has swept across our great country over the past few months has been truly inspiring and invigorating. Let us seize that moment and turn that love of Canada that we all have into action by trusting each other and creating one single Canadian economy from coast to coast to coast.

That is why we introduced this bill. We want to eliminate domestic trade barriers and build one Canadian economy. For far too long, senseless barriers have curbed trade. It is time to mutually recognize provincial and territorial regulations to facilitate trade by Canadian companies throughout the country and allow skilled workers to seize opportunities, wherever they may be.

What is really great is that today, momentum is growing across the country to build one Canadian economy. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have all already passed legislation to remove barriers to internal trade. British Columbia has introduced its historic economic stabilization act. Quebec is advancing its own legislative reforms. Also, I do want to take a moment to salute the leadership of Alberta on this important issue.

The provinces are working together. Memoranda of understanding between Ontario and other provinces, including Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as well as powerful regional agreements, like the new west partnership, signal new levels of co-operation and a commitment to bring down barriers to internal trade. Our provincial colleagues get it. They are doing the work.

This legislation that we are voting on today, together, is about all of us, members of Canada's national Parliament, joining the provinces in their hard work and doing the federal government's fair share. This bill is an important step towards free trade in Canada.

I want to be clear. Even after today's historic vote, there will be more work to be done, and it is incumbent on all of us to maintain the momentum, to get to truly free trade and truly free labour mobility across our great country, to really build one Canadian economy.

That is why, on July 8, the Committee on Internal Trade will meet in Quebec City to push this effort forward and why, on July 15 and 16, my Department of Transport is bringing together leaders from across the country for a two-day hackathon in Toronto to cut red tape for truckers.

I encourage all members of the House to support this work and deliver on the promise of a truly unified economy.

These are not partisan goals. In fact, colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been championing some of these issues for some time, and I am grateful to them for their work and for their support of this legislation.

That is because this bill is about nation-building priorities. This is a bill that will be good for every region, every business and every Canadian. This is a bill about Canadians trusting each other and working together as Canadians. It is about us doing what Australia did three decades ago, through mutual recognition. That action in Australia pulled that great country together and made every single Australian a little more prosperous. It is high time that we as Canadians do the same thing. I am so delighted and so proud that that is what we are doing with this legislation.

What a delicious irony it will be for all of us, as Canadians, to respond to the tariffs imposed from abroad by finally tearing down the tariff and trade barriers that we have imposed on each other. Let us get this done once and for all. Let us come together and deliver free trade in Canada. Let us do this together.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question. Last fall, our hon. colleague resigned from the former government's cabinet because she felt she had lost confidence in former Prime Minister Trudeau's fiscal negligence.

How does the minister rationalize this new Prime Minister's fiscal negligence, which is even worse than Justin Trudeau's?

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

Mr. Speaker, I did what needed to be done in December. It was a hard thing to do, but it was the right thing to do for our party and for our country.

I was very proud, in the past election, to campaign under the banner of our new Prime Minister. I am very proud to be advancing legislation that will do what I said in my resignation letter we needed to do, and that is build Canada in response to the U.S. tariffs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is well aware that the Bloc Québécois supports the first part of the bill, which the minister also supports.

I have a more technical question for her. Once the bill is passed, we believe that Quebec dairy producers and slaughterhouses could quickly be federally licensed. Basically, we would no longer have to rely on the federal government and they would quickly receive a licence.

Can the minister tell me approximately how long it would take for slaughterhouses to become federally licensed once the bill has received royal assent? What is the timeline?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for supporting this part of the bill.

I would like to point out that Premier Legault is in agreement. When we were in Saskatoon, he very clearly stated that the meeting was constructive. As he said, “We will continue to support Quebec's grand economic ambitions, create good, well-paying jobs and strengthen our economy in the face of Donald Trump's threats.” We agree.

Slaughterhouses are definitely one of the things that can really grow Quebec's economy. The member—

[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.