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.

Opposition Motion—Sale of Gas‑Powered Vehicles

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Repentigny.

To put it mildly, the honeymoon between the Conservatives and the Liberals was short-lived. The new couple, united by Bill C-5, is breaking up this morning over electric vehicles. It seems the Liberals may not be willing to buy into all kinds of nonsense when it comes to the energy transition and carbon pricing. Perhaps they are not prepared to go as far as the Conservatives.

I have participated in many Conservative opposition days, particularly with regard to the carbon tax. What are they repeating today with this motion? What are they repeating in this new Parliament? One thing is very clear to me: Today’s motion, once again, shows that the Conservative Party is completely out of touch with Quebec's reality. Not only is the party out of touch, but the Conservative members from Quebec do not have the influence they need within their caucus to make progress on the issues facing the Quebec nation. We saw that this week.

As members know, we had an opposition day on the $800 million that was stolen from Quebeckers and reimbursed to the rest of Canadians for carbon tax payments they never made. What was my Conservative Party colleagues' reaction? They proposed an amendment to the effect that the $800 million could be repaid, if Quebec agreed to end its carbon exchange. The Conservative Party wanted to tell the Government of Quebec how to take action on carbon pricing.

Let us recall the psychodrama that we experienced in the last Parliament when the Conservatives were shouting about how we were the "Liberal Bloc" and about how we were supporting the infamous carbon tax, a tax that did not apply to Quebec. Now, lo and behold, the Conservatives have seen the light and have understood that this much-talked-about carbon tax did not apply to Quebec.

Let us get back to the issue of electric vehicles. I think the key question here is, who has the most to gain from the electrification of transportation and who has the most to lose? The Conservative motion picks a side. It sides with Alberta and the oil and gas sector. The people who have something to lose in the electrification of transportation are in Alberta, the oil and gas sector. The people who have something to gain are in Quebec.

What about Quebec? For the past 30 years, there has been an energy transition. I will come back to the issue of setting up a battery industry. Hydro-Québec has developed a unique expertise that could help us become North America's battery producers. What else could be said about Quebec? Quebec sits atop vast reserves of critical minerals. It has clean electricity that is accessible to everyone at a very low cost. No one pays as competitive a price for electricity as we do in Quebec. It is a favourable geographic location that could allow us to become part of the battery industry. It is a vibrant industrial ecosystem with a low carbon footprint. Consider the forestry sector. The forest is a carbon sink that allows us to sequester carbon when we use wood. Consider Quebec aluminum, which is tied to the hydroelectric sector. It is thanks to Quebec's clean electricity that we can produce aluminum and that the Americans depend on us and our aluminum smelters. Quebec has all these significant advantages that are steering us toward a major transformation and the electrification of transportation, yet my Conservative colleagues from Quebec prefer to side with Alberta.

In many areas, the battery industry that is crucial to electric vehicles in Quebec is booming. Unlike what they are doing out west, Quebec does not invest in carbon capture or storage strategies. Quebec's investments are in this battery industry. The Quebec minister has repeatedly said that his government is in talks with about a hundred companies to develop such projects.

To illustrate the pertinence of my arguments, the two main projects that are likely to develop and create an economic boom in my region of Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean are related to the battery sector. I am talking about the phosphate industry, with First Phosphate and Arianne Phosphate. Those are two major projects.

Unfortunately, we never hear the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord talk about that. During the election campaign, he preferred to talk about GNL Québec, a project that was rejected by the Government of Quebec and that had no future for us. We never heard him say that it was possible to develop a phosphate sector. We have to put all our eggs in—

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

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I share many of the concerns that the member has identified and highlighted.

Like the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party has a lot of issues with the gag order on an omnibus bill like Bill C‑5. My question is simple: What can we do now, in a minority Parliament, to gain the other parties' support for opposing the current effort against age-old democracy and the work of Parliament itself?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Madam Speaker, if you permit, let us talk about fear. I will quote from the Refus global manifesto, published in 1948: “The reign of fear in all its forms is over.” However, to be quite clear, made-in-Canada fear has always been the only tool of the Ottawa bigwigs and the regime. Today, the bogeyman has a new name: Donald Trump. I am not trying to downplay the genuine tariff threat, but there is also the real-life fairy tale of Canada as the 51st state. We were well aware of the Liberals' total opportunism during the election campaign, which was not surprising in itself. However, we are also aware that fear is now being used as leverage for a new phase of centralization, as per usual, no surprise there. It goes by a different name: Bill C‑5.

Let us take a brief historical detour. Crisis breeds fear. However, Ottawa has always taken advantage of crises to push its unitary agenda and centralize power even further, to the detriment of the provinces and especially to the detriment of the only one among them that aspires to be home to a distinct nation, Quebec. Politics is, of course, about power dynamics, and the government knows how to use favourable circumstances to grow its sprawling apparatus. That is what happened in 1840, when the British took advantage of the crushing of the Patriotes rebellion to force the union of the two Canadas. That is what happened after the two world wars, when income tax, which was supposed to be a temporary measure, became permanent. It has never gone away. That is also what happened after René Lévesque's sovereignty-association option was defeated in 1980, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien seized the opportunity to unilaterally patriate the Canadian Constitution without the agreement of Quebec, removing its right of veto. Quebec is still not a signatory to this day. That is also what happened after the 1995 referendum, when what was known as plan B was rolled out, a manoeuvre involving a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces through reduced transfers, mainly for health care and employment insurance, and the use of new budget surpluses to create federal programs that encroached on provincial jurisdictions. That is also what happened during the COVID‑19 health crisis, when the creation of sprawling new structures was announced.

Bill C‑5 is a new form of governance based on arbitrary measures and possibly even cronyism. It was only natural that Ottawa take advantage of this American smokescreen to launch yet another centralizing offensive. Today, the Trump threat is enabling Ottawa to once again pursue the approach of forced unification and attack Quebec's distinct identity, all in the name of the need for “one Canadian economy, not 13”. We should not be swayed by the motion the elected members of Quebec's National Assembly adopted unanimously, the one denouncing this call for unification. That will certainly not be discussed or mentioned in government circles, and the 44 Quebec members in the ruling party shall remain completely silent on the issue, regardless of what the National Assembly would like. Bill C-5 will in all likelihood be passed thanks to a gag order supported by the Liberal-Conservative coalition of proud Canadians, in defiance of any democratic process. A bill with such far-reaching implications deserves to be debated, studied and rigorously analyzed; every detail should be weighed. It should not be fast-tracked like this.

Bill C‑5 is anything but a half measure. As a political plan, I would go so far as to call it radical. It is profound. It creates an arbitrary form of governance potentially based on back-room cronyism that ignores the legal underpinnings that are normally in force in a country governed by the rule of law. We already know that pipelines took over where railroads left off as markers of identity, as a cross-Canada unification measure no less contrived and colonial a construct than Canada itself. However, Bill C‑5 creates an oil monarchy on steroids, with a time allocation motion that both the government and the official opposition will be voting for, which is a rare thing in itself, so much so that we may well wonder whether the Conservatives might be thinking of suing the Liberals for plagiarism.

The Liberals came to power with their T-shirts emblazoned with their one real selling point—the fact that they were not Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives. They then proceeded to serve up a stunning example of how they will ape the Conservatives now that they are in power.

Bill C‑5 establishes an opaque process whereby developers secretly propose projects that will be confidentially reviewed by Ottawa, which will then arbitrarily determine whether they fall within the definition of the national interest, without even clearly indicating the criteria for this concept. All of this remains very vague in the bill.

Once a given project has been deemed to be in the national interest, it may be exempted from environmental impact assessements, from the usual consultations with affected citizens and from respecting the provinces and indigenous peoples.

As soon as the minister responsible for major projects declares that a project is of national interest, it will be pre-approved, provided that it meets the conditions imposed by the approval. After that, the rest is just a formality; there is no turning back. All the consultations and impact assessments that normally take place will be useless. It is a done deal, ciao, bye, because the decision is considered irrevocable. Ultimately, these processes will be nothing more than theatre.

Those projects typically take years to complete. By deciding that a project is in the national interest and must be carried out at all costs, Ottawa is going to tie the hands of future generations.

That is not the end of the bleak picture painted by Bill C‑5. When Ottawa designates a project as being in the national interest, the sponsor can be exempted from any federal law or regulation. The Liberals tried to turn the last election into a referendum on Donald Trump, and now they are trying to institutionalize governance by order, on par with what we are currently seeing in the White House.

Unlike statutory instruments that have to be published in the Canada Gazette for consultation for at least 45 business days before they can come into force, the decision to designate a project as being of national interest is not subject to consultation and can take effect as soon as the order is published. There are no guidelines outlining how the minister will have to assess the project, no criteria for assessing the impact and no deadline for consultations. Using orders in council to decide which law will apply to which entity, depending on the circumstances, is the type of abuse that is about to be established in Liberal-Conservative Canada.

In fact, the schedule to the bill lists 13 acts and seven regulations that proponents will no longer be required to adhere to, as though the oil companies' power exempts them from basic accountability in a country governed by the rule of law. These acts and regulations have been listed several times, but I will list them again: the Fisheries Act; the Indian Act; the International River Improvements Act; the National Capital Act; the Canadian Navigable Waters Act; the Dominion Water Power Act; the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994; the Canada Transportation Act; the Canada Marine Act; the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; the Species at Risk Act; the Canadian Energy Regulator Act; the Impact Assessment Act; the migratory bird sanctuary regulations; the Dominion water power regulations; the wildlife area regulations; the marine mammal regulations; the port authorities operations regulations; the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations; and the migratory birds regulations.

It goes even further, beyond the acts and regulations I just mentioned, because proposed section 21 in the bill states that the government may, by order, exempt proponents from the application of any act, not only those I just mentioned. On paper, oil companies could be exempted from the Official Languages Act, the Income Tax Act, the Canada Labour Code and even the Criminal Code. That would set a precedent that is both vague and dangerous. Is a government that can shield its friends from the law not starting to look a lot like what is happening in Washington? This is coming from people who committed to doing things very differently from what is happening in Washington.

It seems that they are in fact building the 51st U.S. state on the quiet, under time allocation, with no regard for the serious studies conducted by parliamentary institutions such as committees, and on the pretext of a bogus emergency.

It should be noted that the Canadian parliamentary system already has a rather poor record when viewed as part of the long history of democracies. In addition to being a monarchy, Canada has a parliamentary system that is not proportional. It allows a government to be formed without having received a majority of the votes. The system also grants veto power to a Senate that is made up of unelected members appointed by the Prime Minister who are free to prevent legislation from being passed even though it has passed all the stages of the House of Commons. There is also a trend towards an increasing concentration of power within the Prime Minister's office and among a few key ministers, but not too many, to the detriment of the institution of Parliament. Bill C-5 is yet another step towards radicalizing this aristocratic form of governance, which is already deeply rooted in Canadian political culture.

On top of that, we are seeing a new phase of predatory and rampant mutation of the system wrongly referred to as federalism. When Bill C-5 was introduced on June 6, the Prime Minister was asked by journalists whether the bill would make way for a pipeline to be built on Quebec territory if Quebec refuses. The Prime Minister said no, since there needs to be a consensus. The Prime Minister's word is good. However, if this were set out in the legislation, that would be even better.

When we read clause 5(7) of the new building Canada act in Bill C-5, it states:

Before recommending that an order be made...the Minister must consult with any other federal minister and any provincial or territorial government that the Minister considers appropriate and with Indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be adversely affected by the carrying out of the project to which the order relates.

It says “that the Minister considers”. This means that a minister is free to consult or not consult Quebec, the provinces, first nations or another minister on a project that would be located in Quebec. He can choose to do so, but it is not a requirement. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the minister says he will pick up the phone and make a call. If that consultation does not yield a positive result, the legislation still allows the minister to proceed. This does not even remotely resemble a veto right, far from it.

Today, the term “oil monarchy” is taking on its full meaning. Canadian oil dependency crosses party lines, as was made clear again today. However, scientists agree that 80% of oil must remain underground if we want to show some modicum of responsibility. What is more, 96% of Canadian oil comes from oil sands, meaning that the portion that does not come from oil sands is marginal. However, the oil sands are among the dirtiest sources of oil in the world.

The focus on exporting such raw materials has a major impact on public policy. Politicians believe that they need to constantly provide infrastructure and adjust environmental and health regulations in order to maintain national competitiveness. We have more proof of that today. The resources dedicated to supporting exports are set to grow indefinitely. It is a never‑ending cycle.

The railway that led to the creation of Canada was supposed to be made profitable by the transportation of commodities. That halted the exploration of new technological avenues. The result was an even greater dependence on raw commodities. There is a consistent, self-reinforcing pattern. The increased reliance on raw material exports will require increased investments in transportation infrastructure. That is money that will not be invested elsewhere in the economy. Is that a wise bet?

Oil shareholders are mainly foreign, since their profit centre is offshore. This shows how ridiculous Canadian oil patriotism is. Despite this, the share of foreign companies investing in Canadian oil has been steadily declining for several years. It generates very little in royalties.

Let us talk about shale oil. This is a particularly poor development opportunity in which Canada appears to be trapped.

One of Canada's biggest disappointments is that, in the global marketplace, in the midst of the great geopolitical struggle around oil, Canada is ultimately a minor player with basically no influence. In any event, it persists in trying to unify around this single basis because, as an artificial country, it needs to have something to build a common identity around.

After its post-national torpor, Canada is now looking to speed up construction from coast to coast to coast to the detriment of Quebec and the first nations. We have seen this movie many times before, and we think it is time for something new. We thank the Liberals and Conservatives for giving us this umpteenth demonstration of why Quebeckers need to have an independent country, a country of their own. We are not short on reasons, but this gives us one more, to add urgency to our argument.

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

Madam Speaker, anyone who has been involved in private business knows that what we really need to make a project successful is predictability and to know what the rules are. We have seen time and time again that the Liberals move the goalposts halfway through the game. With Bill C-5, they are doing exactly the same thing.

Can the member explain why he thinks this bill is a good idea and why we should not just scrap the bills before it, which caused all these problems in the first place?

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to a lot of speeches on Bill C-5 today. It is really important to recognize the essence of the bill, which is to advance nation-building projects that will ultimately lead to Canada having the strongest economy in the G7. This is something that the new Prime Minister and the administration here has made a decision on. That is the essence of the bill.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Bourassa.

I would challenge, in particular, my friends in the Bloc and the New Democrats. As I said earlier, I am not one to defend the Conservative Party of Canada, but I can tell members that I respect the fact that they have recognized the value of this legislation. In their minds, they might think of it as a smaller step and that it needs amendments and so forth, but they recognize that this is a bill that should be advanced, and I appreciate that. I think Canadians will appreciate that.

Bill C-5 was talked about at great length throughout the country. It was not referred to as Bill C-5, but everyone in this chamber, I am sure, can appreciate the concerns that were being raised at the doors during the election that ultimately led up to April 28. Our constituents were genuinely concerned about Donald Trump and the trade and tariff issue. They were genuinely concerned about how Canada was going to be able to deal with that issue.

We went through change internally within the Liberal Party of Canada. We now have a new Prime Minister, and he demonstrated that change by taking a look and responding to what Canadians wanted. In fact, the very first announcement our new Prime Minister made was to give a tax break to Canadians. All a member needs to do is to take a look at Bill C-4. They will see the tax break there, and 22 million Canadians will benefit from that.

Members can take a look at page one of the party platform, and we even had a couple of Conservatives make reference to it earlier. I will read one sentence: “To do this, there must be one Canadian economy, not thirteen.” At the end of the day, Bill C-5 recognizes that fact.

We have a Prime Minister and a Liberal Party that achieved more votes in that last federal election than any other political party or leader in any previous federal election. We have representation in every region of this great nation. We understood what it is that Canadians were telling us throughout the nation, which is why we have Bill C-5 today.

Like Bill C-4, it is a critical piece of legislation. I am disappointed that the Bloc and the NDP are not necessarily reflecting what they would have been hearing at the doors, whether it was the tax issue or, in this particular case, Bill C-5.

I understand federal and provincial jurisdiction, and I will spend a few minutes talking about that, but I can tell members that this legislation is in the best interest of all regions. It is better for our economy. I am concerned about the aerospace industry in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba and about the different industries that we need to build to get them healthier, stronger. This is the type of legislation that will make a difference. However, we hear from my Conservative friends that the bill is not going to free everything up.

Let us talk about labour, for example. When we think of labour, there is a significant component from the federal side that would benefit from the legislation, but yes, there is a provincial side to it. I recognize that. It is something Ottawa needs to talk with premiers and first ministers about to work it through. We are taking a strong leadership stand on that issue. It is incorporated into this legislation, and two weeks ago, the Prime Minister met with all the first ministers. I trust, know and am confident that labour was part of the dialogue, whether it was during the official agenda or on the side. In all likelihood, it was both.

I can appreciate the urgency. It is not as simple as the Conservatives try to portray it. They tend to believe that we could just have a blue seal program to recognize all the health care workers. That is not a great idea. I was a provincial MLA for a number of years, just under 20 years, and in fact, I was the health care critic. When Conservatives talk about doctors, nurses and professionals, those are bodies certified from within the different provinces.

The most important things Ottawa can do are, one, provide leadership in trying to convince provinces to take down those labour barriers, and two, provide some incentives to do so. I was encouraged by the results of the first ministers meeting. The Prime Minister was working with the provincial and territorial governments, of all political stripes, putting Canadians and Canada's economy first. The general consensus that came from that particular discussion was very positive. We have already seen provinces that have taken down barriers.

From my perspective, I would like to see a lot more. Premier Wab Kinew has brought forward legislation, and he is talking with premiers, such as Doug Ford, to look at ways to take down provincial barriers. As has been pointed out, there is nothing new in the sense of the issue. The issue has always been there, even in the days when I was in MLA. I suspect if we were to check provincial Hansard, we would probably find comments from me somewhere along the lines of taking down those economic barriers.

An important takeaway is that we went from a mandated federal election on April 28, supporting Bill C-5, which was followed up by a first ministers meeting, and now we have the legislation before us. Fortunately, at least the official opposition has recognized the significance of it and agrees that it should be passed this week, but it is unfortunate that the Bloc and the NDP have not seen the merit of having this legislation. I look to the Bloc members in particular and the important role they play being part of a political party. As opposed to trying to sabotage, why could they not look at ways they could potentially improve the legislation if they have concerns about it.

There is an expectation of rebuilding our economy, so as the Prime Minister clearly indicated, we can strive for the goal of being the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. This is something that is definitely achievable. We have opportunities before us. The legislation could, in fact, enable the government to continue to take a leadership role on building strong and advanced nation-building projects that would add value to our economy and improve the lives of every Canadian, no matter where they live, whether those projects are hydro, pipelines, rails or ports.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, to summarize what is in Bill C-5, once cabinet has decided that a bill is in the national interest, 13 laws will be set aside. They say that the ministers thought this bill had to move forward, regardless of all the legislation that has been passed over the years.

Section 21 of the bill is quite alarming. It allows the government not only to set aside 13 laws and several regulations, but also to add new ones. These laws are essentially intended to ensure that the projects implemented are good ones that respect the environment and protect species at risk, for example.

Why does my colleague want to support Bill C-5, which will even allow bad projects to go ahead?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague says he wants to be bold. I am waiting to see that. This legislation is not bold. If anything, it is underwhelming. The Liberals are over-promising and will under-deliver for Canadians. Absolutely, I think we have shown today that we are more than willing to work with the government to try to make this work because we want energy projects built. We want interprovincial barriers torn down, but this bill does not do it.

Once again, if the member is truly committed to working together on this, I would encourage him to listen to the proposals and amendments that are brought forward by the opposition to improve Bill C-5 to ensure it actually achieves what the Liberals are claiming it will.

[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, I share those same concerns.

Last week in committee of the whole, the Minister of Energy said he has over 180 consultations with first nations over the next two weeks. How could he actually think that 180 over 14 days is meaningful consultation? The government is not a government that takes things seriously.

There are proven ways of getting things done with first nations. In my own private sector experience working with first nations in Treaty 6, 68 nations out of 72 signed up to buy a pipeline. That was driven by the first nations in the sector themselves, not with government interference from incompetence and with rhetorical talking points. There is a way, but I am not sure this is the way for Bill C-5.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

The idea behind Bill C‑5, a bill that the government is determined to pass quickly, is to allow certain major projects to move forward without too many checks and balances. That is a matter of deep concern to the Bloc Québécois because we believe that the environmental protections put in place over the years serve a purpose.

Why is the part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that deals with the disposal of pollutants in marine environments so unnecessary that it needs to be shoved aside to make way for major projects that suddenly need to get done at lightening speed?

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really important for all of us to recognize that with Bill C-5, there is going to be an opportunity for it to go to committee.

I have posed this question to other Conservative members, and I appreciate how they are going to be voting. The question is this: Are there some specific changes they would like to see to Bill C-5? I do not necessarily want to hear about Bill C-69 or other pieces of legislation. What I want to know is whether the Conservative Party has any specific amendments that members would like to see to Bill C-5. I think it is a legitimate concern, and I am wondering if the member could provide an answer.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Foothills.

It is a privilege to rise in the House today on behalf of Edmonton Northwest, a constituency that borders the industrial heartland of Alberta, a constituency with some of Edmonton's largest industrial zoning, where men and women work on behalf of the energy sector.

Over the last 10 years of the lost Liberal decade, we have seen so much uncertainty. So much of our potential as a country continues to be held back. In a country with the highest amount of natural resources per capita in the world, Canada should not be in the position that we are in: the weakest economic growth among the G7; sending our allies, like Germany and Japan, to non-allied countries for energy; and sowing division amongst provinces, people and regions. As Conservatives, we want to unleash the power of our natural resource sector in partnership with all stakeholders, investors, indigenous peoples and all partnerships for the win-win benefit of all Canadians. Unleashing the economy needs to be measured and strategically done, rather than driven strictly by ideology.

One way of measuring success is by investment. Do the risk-takers feel comfortable enough to take that risk and make billions of dollars in investment? Well, it has been many years since investors felt safe to build large infrastructure in Canada. I personally was in a room hosted by British Columbia Investment Management Corporation just two short years ago, where a question was asked of those Canadian capital and investment bankers: What percentage of their portfolio was invested into Canadian infrastructure? The response was abysmal: maybe 5%, on average, with no outlook for growth.

Half a trillion dollars of investment has poured out of this country and into the United States over the last decade. This is due to Liberal anti-energy laws; the sowing of division in our country, pitting regions and provinces against each other; ignoring Alberta and the west in particular; and the villainization of our energy sector for all of Canada. It was not always this way, though. There was a time when provinces took the risk to invest in each other.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund invested hundreds of millions of dollars into other provinces. Albertans took the risk and made the prudent decision to invest in Canadian energy across provincial boundaries, such as in Hydro-Québec, the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Nova Scotia Power and the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal. Still today, multiple generations of Newfoundlanders come to Alberta to build the energy engine of Canada in Fort McMurray.

These investments showed we can work together in energy development. Albertans took the risk on other provinces, their resources and their people because we believed in Canada, and it was worth investing in. We believed it would make us a stronger country, and it did. Contrast that with today. When we ask Canadians what they think of Albertan resources and investing in each other, I do not think we get the same response.

Bill C-5 has all the usual talking points, and that is what this has proven to be. It is the same strategy of safe talking points and rhetoric. What are the measures of success beyond just the rhetoric of Bill C-5 and the legislation? What is the number of projects? How many of these would cross provincial boundaries? What is the investment number? What is the growth in GDP? What are the timelines? How much of that half-trillion dollars would come back to Canada from the United States? Is this tough talk against the States just that, just talk?

Sure, we hear the current government wants to get things built within two years, but it does not put that two-year timeline in its own legislation. I believe we can build at the speed of business. There is evidence. Our country has the capacity, the manpower and the ability to do right by our energy sectors. We have no shortage of experience as a country to get large projects done. Take, for example, the TransCanada natural gas pipeline. Back in the 1950s, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd. built 3,500 kilometres of pipeline from Alberta to Montreal in just three short years. Still to this day, that Canadian, Albertan resource is heating homes in the east.

We proved as a country then that we can bypass the United States and build projects of national significance, proving that through natural resources, we are a strong, sovereign country. We can get things done. However, the ability to get things done has only worsened under the Liberals. They may tout Trans Mountain as a success, but the project, under them, went from a $5-billion investment to a $30-billion mismanaged project.

Is this the same level of excellence we should expect under Bill C-5 out of their new special projects office? The Liberals will also tout new investment of $5 billion into the national indigenous loan guarantee program, but I can tell members that $5 billion on a $30-billion mismanaged Liberal project would not cut it on Trans Mountain, and this same level of incompetence will not cut it on future projects.

Cedar LNG has raised the bar to 51% indigenous ownership on new projects, and this $5 billion that is supposed to highlight the new level of indigenous participation in this economy will certainly not meet that bar set by Cedar for the number of projects needed to make this country a superpower in energy. All of this uncertainty only undermines indigenous participation in the economy, sends mixed messages and sounds more like the usual reconciliation rhetoric. Uncertainty in indigenous spaces only means more uncertainty for Canadian investors and risk-takers to build the projects needed yesterday to make our country stronger internally and internationally.

Under this Liberal Bill C-5, the government will again have its own laws to make an excuse not to get things built. That is where the real answer lies. The answer needed to make Canada an economic superpower is to repeal Bill C-69, the no new pipeline law; repeal Bill C-48, the tanker ban; repeal the cap on Canadian energy; repeal the industrial carbon tax; repeal those things rather than being too cute by half with Bill C-5.

On this side of the House, we believe in building projects, as was proven and done in the past. What we do not believe in is more government rhetoric. We do not believe in playing politics of convenience with our national economy. On this side of the House, we do not agree with raising expectations of Canadians, the provinces, first nations and investors only to pull the rug out from under them, with excuses down the road from existing legislation. Every day that goes by, the Prime Minister and government are proving to be more of the same as the last Trudeau government, all about the photo op and not the result.

On this side of the House, we support building projects and unleashing the economy, and we will hold the Liberal government to account in that regard. On this side of the House, we believe in energy workers, and we believe in less red tape. We believe in legislation that would last beyond two to five years. We believe in government action that would last generations. We believe in energy security and going beyond photo ops. Canadians need affordable, reliable power and fuel so Canada can be self-reliant and achieve real economic independence from the U.S.

We believe in building things across this country for that mission. We believe in enhancing our ports for this cause. We believe in engaging indigenous nations effectively, rather than the same old talking points through third-party institutions. We believe in creating investment certainty for Canadian risk-takers. We as a country have done it in the past, and we can do it again with the repeal of Bill C-69 and those other laws.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what stands out for me in Bill C‑5 is two numbers. I used to be an accountant and a banker, so I really speak numbers. We are looking at a 7% increase in productivity. I have been in business for over 25 years, and there has always been a productivity problem.

By making decisions right here in our own country, with our provinces and with indigenous peoples, we can do things better. We can cut $200 billion in costs and increase our productivity free from the influence of other countries.

We are taking charge of our own fate. That is the main takeaway here.