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.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian Heritage

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, what the Conservatives are doing is incomprehensible. They are telling us that the Liberals are stealing their ideas, so we are proposing that they study the bill in committee. The Conservative position in the debate is that the Liberals are not going far enough. They have an opportunity to improve Bill C‑5 and have even more of their ideas stolen, but they are passing it up.

I think they will pay for it one day.

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

Madam Speaker, the member asked where the platform made any reference to Bill C-5. I recommend that the member opposite read page 1. Page 1 captures the essence of what the Liberal Party talked about throughout the election: one Canadian economy. Bill C-5 is about having one Canadian economy. Why did the Prime Minister meet with all the premiers, the first ministers? It was to talk about having one Canadian economy.

We had a election on April 28, and the mandate was followed by meetings and legislation. Only the Bloc and some of the independents are saying no. The Conservatives and the Liberals are respecting the election outcome of April 28. Why will the Bloc not respect it?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to wish you a good evening. It may be a long night for you as well.

Since this may be my last speech before the House adjourns in the next few days, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in my riding a very happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day and national holiday. We are going to celebrate in style. We are going to celebrate our national holiday, our French-speaking nation in Quebec. We will be celebrating from Saint-Placide, Kanesatake and Oka to Saint-Joseph-du-Lac. We will be celebrating in Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac and in all areas of Mirabel, as well as in Saint-Eustache. There is a new part of my riding in Saint-Eustache, and I fully intend to get involved there. I would like to tell all my constituents that I look forward to seeing them. Once the House adjourns in this very troubling democratic context, I cannot wait to spend time on the ground visiting the people who elected me. I am really looking forward to it.

I began my speech this way because we need to find moments of joy in the House. We need to find them because what is happening in the House is sad. The business of supply is sad. The situation is sad, and what is even sadder is that I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. Sharing my time with my adored whip is another moment of joy. We need to find these little moments. This is one of them. The business of supply is very sad.

It is hard to get the truth out of ministers and the government. I will give one example that I referred to when I asked a question earlier. The Minister of Finance is not supposed to be a door-to-door vacuum salesman. He is the Minister of Finance.

We spoke to him on Thursday about how he had run out of funds for subsidies under the incentives for zero-emission vehicles program. We talked to him about how he had made a promise to car dealers in Quebec and about how they had advanced 70% of the money owed by the federal government out of their own pockets. We asked the minister whether he intended to keep his promise and fund the missing subsidies. The minister, who never answers a question, floundered. He did not answer. He was all over the place. In the end, he never did answer the question.

Today, we put the question back to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, whom we love because he puts on a very good show. We asked him whether the government intends to pay back the dealerships the money they are owed, given that they are small businesses. There are some in my constituency, and people have been talking to me about it. The parliamentary secretary congratulated me. He told me to keep lobbying in the corridors and that I would get there eventually.

Twenty minutes later, I read a newspaper article saying that the minister had announced that the program would be reinstated. However, the funding is still not there. With the Liberals, we have to see the money to believe it. However, at least there has been an announcement. It is not easy getting honesty and truth out of the Liberals. Frankly, the conclusion we have come to from studying the appropriations is that the government makes decisions on a whim. The Liberals do not know what they are going to announce from one week to the next. There might be good news on the military spending front. We do not even know if they came up with that the day before, the day before that, or three days prior. We do not know.

The same applies to reimbursing Quebeckers for the rebate on the carbon tax that the eight other provinces did not pay. During the election campaign, the Liberals said that they would abolish the carbon tax while giving an advance rebate to provinces where the tax had not been collected. During the consideration of the business of supply, we told the Minister of Finance that he owed Quebeckers $814 million. We asked him many times to confirm that these cheques had been sent out before the tax was collected. We asked him once, twice, three times, four times, but the minister refused to answer. That is clear proof of the strange relationship he has with the truth, to say the least.

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Giroux, was in the Senate. According to the Senate committee blues, Mr. Giroux said, “The Canadian carbon rebate, or CCR, is an advance payment to offset what people will pay for the carbon tax. Since the rebate was paid in April, but the carbon tax is no longer being collected, the money will come from the consolidated revenue because there will no longer be a fuel tax rebate or surcharge. The money will come from the consolidated revenue fund.”

It will therefore come out of the consolidated revenue fund, and Quebeckers will pay for it. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said yesterday in the Senate. Senator Forest asked again if everyone would pay, then, including Quebeckers. Mr. Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, answered that that was exactly right.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer would make a good finance minister, because he knows what he is talking about, he tells us the truth and he says things clearly. The corollary to what was said yesterday at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is that Quebeckers paid for the Liberals to buy votes. The Liberals bought votes. They handed out rebate cheques. However, it was not a rebate, because if something was not paid, then it cannot be rebated. Quebeckers were robbed, and they need to be reimbursed. That is how the business of supply works. We moved a motion, and the Conservatives joined forces with the Liberals to steal from Quebeckers.

Earlier, the Conservative member for Bow River said that the Conservatives were going to vote with the Liberals and that they never expected the Liberals to steal so many of their ideas. They are not stealing ideas, but they are stealing from Quebeckers. Where in the Liberal platform did it say that Quebeckers would be robbed? Where in the Conservative platform did it say that they were going to steal $814 million from Quebeckers? I am being told that the Liberals stole this idea from the Conservative platform. It is this murky relationship with the truth that is preventing us from carrying out the business of supply properly.

That is to say nothing of the government's Bill C‑4, which will pass with little or no study. The Liberals say it is urgent because people need the tax cut immediately. The notice of ways and means motion means that people are already entitled to the tax cut. It is now in effect. We have all the time we need to properly study the bill and invite witnesses to appear before the committee, particularly with regard to the housing measures, about which we have technical questions to ask. The tax cut is already in effect. In this case, the Liberals and the Conservatives have an unhealthy relationship with the truth.

The same goes for Bill C‑5, which should have been split in two. In that case, the ministers will not be lying in committee because they will not be appearing before the committee. We know that there is a cult of personality among the Liberals. The Liberals could almost have a Mao-Zedong-style poster of the Prime Minister and everyone would prostrate themselves before him. It is a cult of personality.

The Prime Minister appoints the minister he wants and the minister can select the projects. After that, he can do bogus assessments. When he adds his project in a schedule and to a list, all the legislation that might have been able to protect the public, the environment and the ecosystems are suspended. The Liberals tell us that is what we are going to do to build Canada strong. They need to stop saying that. When the pipeline is built, Donald Trump will no longer have been in power for six or seven years. This gives certain companies incredible lobbying power over the minister. This gives the Prime Minister discretionary power. The Liberals are telling us that no minister will be appearing before the committee. The Liberal ministers are too busy to come testify.

Although they support the bill, and we understand why, the Conservatives are voting to muzzle Parliament. The new trend among Liberals is to tell us that everything was in their election platform and that replaces the work normally done by legislators. Was it written in their election platform? Where in the Liberal election platform did it say that the platform would replace legislators if the Liberals were elected, even as a minority?

The problem in all this is that we have a Prime Minister who fails to grasp that he is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister thinks he is a CEO. He thinks he can show contempt for the House. He thinks he can show contempt for our work. He thinks he can show contempt for our committees. He thinks he is a CEO, but fortunately, he is only a minority shareholder. His party does not have a majority of seats. Do people realize that this gentleman is behaving like the majority shareholder of Canada, like the CEO of Canada? I want to look the Conservatives in the eye and tell them that they should be ashamed to hand him such power.

No budget was tabled. The Liberals' fiscal framework was flawed and incompetently put together. The government budgeted an expected $20 billion in revenues from retaliatory tariffs. That amount currently stands at $1.6 billion. Obviously, we are not going to get to $20 billion. The tax cuts were supposed to be paid from that amount. This framework was in the Liberals' election platform. Why is no budget being tabled? Why is that no substitute for legislators?

That is the problem. The problem is that we are unable to do our job as parliamentarians because neither the government nor the ministers give us the sort of respect we need to do our job. That is upsetting. It is also upsetting to see the Conservatives supporting this process.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his scholarly presentation. I would also like to take this opportunity to greet his family members, who are here on the Hill today.

At the end of his speech, my colleague said something very important. He said that it is important to study the estimates, because it is the role of Parliament and, by extension, that of the opposition, to serve as a check on the government and its spending.

After what my colleague just said, I wonder if he feels uncomfortable being part of a government that introduced Bill C-5, which is not even split up and in which the government, with the help of the Conservatives, is taking away the ability of Parliament and committees to exercise oversight and conduct a detailed analysis of such a substantial bill. How can they not be uncomfortable saying such a thing about the estimates and doing something completely different for everything else, under the pretext that one line in the Liberal election platform mentioned what is in Bill C-5?

I would like my colleague to tell me about the feelings and emotions he experiences when he tells us contradictory things like that.

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas-Powered Vehicles

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a period for questions and comments. There will be no questions. I will make a comment. I rarely do that.

I listened to my colleague's speech. It has become clear to me. The Liberals no longer have a moral compass, any ideas, values or principles. They have nothing left. They are prepared to do anything to keep their seat, their big salary and their pension. We saw that today: carbon tax eliminated, no more climate policy, Bill C‑5, disregard for democracy, approving pipelines without assessments. We can add all of that to the list of violations of their purported principles.

Today we are debating a Conservative motion. I disagree with the Conservatives, but at least they are consistent. There is a Conservative motion on zero-emission standards and my Liberal colleague is teaching us a lesson on environmentalism. I wish him all the best in his career and his personal life. I hope that one day he will be able to look himself in the mirror and reflect on the values he wanted to convey in politics because they are hard to identify today.

The Environment

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been four years since we were promised new selenium regulations to protect Canada's water and fish from the devastating impacts of coal mining.

With the Conservatives and the Liberals in a bromance on Bill C-5, I am wondering whether the minister will be bringing these protections forward. Now that they have decided to ignore workers' rights, environmental laws and indigenous rights, these protections and regulations are more important than ever.

When will we see these long-awaited, long-promised regulations to stop foreign coal companies from destroying our beloved Rocky Mountains?

Intergovernmental Relations

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 allows Ottawa to impose pipelines on Quebec, the provinces and indigenous people without their consent. Bill C-5 allows the government to breach 13 laws and to add others by order in council. Bill C-5 sets out criteria for projects of national significance, but those too can be circumvented.

This is no joke. Bill C-5 even allows ministers to circumvent Bill C-5. That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing amendments. Without our amendments, Bill C-5 is nothing more than a licence to steamroll over Quebec. Will the Liberals support that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he would never impose energy projects on Quebec or any province without its consent. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 states the opposite. This bill allows Ottawa to make a unilateral decision by order in council and then hold bogus consultations once the project has already been approved. The Bloc Québécois thought this must be a mistake, because that is not what the Prime Minister had promised. We are proposing an amendment in line with what the Prime Minister said. It would require him to obtain the approval of Quebec and the provinces before moving forward.

Will the Prime Minister support it?

The Environment

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 does not just circumvent environmental assessments. It also enables oil companies to violate 13 laws and seven regulations that mainly concern the environment.

With Bill C‑5, there is no longer any need to comply with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act, the marine mammal regulations, and many more. Worse still, proposed section 21 states that Ottawa can suspend any other act by order in council, like Donald Trump.

Is there even one law that the Liberals are not prepared to flout to please the oil companies?

Government Priorities

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Beaches—East York is certainly not the only Liberal who is uncomfortable with Bill C-5. There are other Liberals who did not go into politics to force pipelines on Quebec without its consent and without a credible environmental assessment. There are other Liberals who did not go into politics to undermine reconciliation efforts by forcing energy projects on indigenous people. There are other Liberals who did not go into politics to copy Pierre Poilievre's ideas and pass them with a closure motion thanks to the Conservatives.

Will these Liberals ask the Prime Minister to let Parliament do its job instead of ramming through Bill C-5?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is taking advantage of the distraction caused by the G7 summit to force his Bill C-5 through under a gag order. It is an attack on Quebec and indigenous peoples.

Fortunately, some people are paying attention. Yesterday, the Assembly of First Nations threatened to take legal action if Bill C-5 is passed without adequate consultation with indigenous peoples. Also yesterday, a former Liberal minister voted against his caucus, saying that the Liberals' approach would embarrass even Stephen Harper.

Will the Liberals take some time to answer questions about Bill C-5 instead of ramming it down our throats here in Parliament?

The Economy

[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.

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas-Powered Vehicles

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that my Liberal colleague intends to vote against the Conservative motion. I would have been very concerned if she had decided to vote with the Conservatives.

While she seems to be saying that we need to transition to electric vehicles, which is a great, her government is introducing more and more pro-oil industry policies. I am thinking in particular of Bill C‑5, the fact that they buy pipelines and the fact that they support carbon storage.

Will my colleague commit to trying to get her government to stop constantly working in favour of the oil companies? We cannot have it both ways. We need to choose a direction and follow it. We cannot keep moving in opposite directions.

Alleged Misleading Minister Testimony in Committee of the Whole

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Lakeland on Friday, June 13, respecting statements made in the committee of the whole on Wednesday evening.

The member alleged that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources misled the House respecting statements he made in response to her question about the process and context of Bill C-5. My colleague across the way is unfortunately engaging in a game of gotcha politics. Members of this House know well that the cut and thrust of questions and answers in the committee of the whole can be designed to trip up another member. This can and does happen, but to impute a motive that the minister deliberately misled the House is not in question. He did not.

The time for answers in the committee of the whole is to be proportional to the time to ask the question. As members can appreciate, this results in very short questions that are not designed to receive informed and contextualized answers. That is what the minister was attempting to do in providing the member with an answer to her question, to provide her with the context and process that will be used in the project identification.

The process envisioned in identifying projects of national interest will involve consultations and engagements with a diverse group of Canadians, including, first and foremost, indigenous partners, premiers, businesses, environmental groups and investors. This is not a process where politicians make decisions in a vacuum. Rather, this process will include real and robust engagement with the groups I just mentioned.

I will, for the sake of clarity and to avoid any confusion that the minister's remarks may have caused, reassure members that the minister in no way sought to deliberately mislead the House or my colleague across the way.

We apologize for any confusion that may have arisen from this debate. I will say that the minister's attempt to clarify and provide some context on how the process to identify projects of national interest will proceed, in my view, is important for all Canadians. The groups and individuals who will have a stake in these projects need to be meaningfully engaged, heard and respected, and the process will inform our approach.

In closing, I note that the exchange that is the subject of the member's concern occurred on Wednesday evening. The member waited until Friday to raise this concern with you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not want to impute motives as to why the matter was not raised at the earliest opportunity, Thursday, June 12, when the House had over six hours of debate on the Conservative opposition day motion. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the matter was certainly not raised at the first opportunity, and it was not a matter that would have taken such an experienced member one and a half sitting days to raise.

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas‑Powered Vehicles

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies to the interpreters.

I was saying that, with today's motion, what the Conservatives are proposing is to hold Quebec back from its transition to a low-carbon economy and have our investments go to waste. It is simple: The Manichaean view would be that the Conservatives want us in an oil and gas stranglehold. We saw that in the previous Parliament, and they are doing it again. The Conservatives constantly defend oil and gas tooth and nail. Quebec should remain dependent on oil and gas instead of developing its own clean electricity infrastructures. That would make absolutely no sense. That is what I do not understand.

Why should we electrify transportation? Oil sands development is the industry with the highest greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Transportation is another major emitter. The electrification of transportation will reduce the consumption of fuel, along with our GHG emissions. If anyone does not believe that, they do not believe in climate change.

Even worse, it is an essential economic driver in Quebec. I myself have an electric vehicle. Some people would have us believe that electric vehicles are nothing but trouble. That is nonsense. I live in the Saguenay, precisely 665 kilometres from Parliament. I can get here with my car. I have to stop for 20 minutes to charge it at a rapid charging station, then I can continue on my way. Typically, stopping for 20 minutes during a six-and-a-half-hour drive is not a luxury, so there is no reason, with today's new technologies, not to drive a electric vehicle. What the Conservatives want, however, is to keep people dependent on oil and gas.

I see this motion as an extension of what we have seen in the past. Former Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is a master at coming up with populist ideas that make no sense. Today the Conservatives are attacking electric vehicles. They are using the slogan of Quebec's Conservative Party: “My car, my choice”. It seems to be a matter of identity for the Conservatives.

I understand that we can have polarizing debates. Some people are pro-life, others are pro-choice. They are pro-gas, so they disagree with those who are pro-electricity. I do not understand how a serious party can introduce a motion like this.

However, what is most important is that today the Conservatives are trying to defend the oil and gas industry. They are on-side with the government on Bill C‑5 to defend the oil and gas industry tooth and nail. Ultimately, the Conservative Party's rhetoric is similar to the Bloc Québécois's rhetoric: if it is good for Quebec, if it does not harm Quebec, we support it. In their case, if it is good for the oil and gas industry, if it does not harm the oil and gas sector, they support it. Otherwise, they oppose it. This motion is just one example of that.