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.

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

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a fantastic question. I think that is the essence of all of this. On the one hand, Liberals say, “Let us get things built”; they say that they will get things moving and shovels in the ground. However, at the same time, they have a regulatory framework that currently exists that stifles any of that from happening, while companies that beg the government, are properly connected and maybe, hopefully, even throw a few dollars to the Liberal Party, might even get their project approved.

It happened in Ontario with the Green Energy Act; a whole whack of companies that received projects for wind turbines and solar panels were shown to have donated to the Ontario Liberal Party. I fear, unfortunately, that the framework the Liberals are setting up in Bill C-5 is a dangerous path to take; I do not advise it. That is why we have a free market, where people with the best applications go forward.

[Amandeep Sodhi, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the election campaign, my campaign team and I knocked on thousands of doors and heard from many constituents across the riding about how worried they are regarding the economy and Donald Trump's tariffs.

Can our government count on the hon. member's support for Bill C-5?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in the House to add my thoughts and the views of our constituents on various pieces of legislation. Today, it will be on Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

Before I get into the meat of the bill, I will say that this is my first chance to stand and give a speech in the House since the election, so I would like to thank my team working here in Ottawa and, of course, back at home, for their ongoing work. They keep the wheels on the bus and keep things moving. I want to thank them for their very hard work and professionalism. I would like to thank Marnie; Lisa; Tara; my executive assistant, Andrew; of course Mack and Paul here in Ottawa; and, during the election, the teams of volunteers, of whom there were many on all sides.

In our part of the world, in Ontario, we went through some pretty challenging weather. There was the big ice storm. Every municipality in my riding was under a state of emergency for a couple of weeks. It put a strain on volunteers of all stripes, but everyone showed up day in and day out. They kept knocking on doors, putting up signs and spreading their respective messages, so I want to thank everyone who played a part in that role. Our democracy is stronger because of their work.

I want to give a shout-out to my campaign team and my campaign manager, Paul; my EDA president, Derek; and of course my family for their unwavering support. For everyone in this place, if we do not have the support of our family, it is extremely difficult to do this job. My family has my back and is encouraging me to keep doing this, so I thank my family as well for the ongoing support.

We are debating Bill C-5 today. It has two main parts, and the first has to do with interprovincial trade. As we all know and have heard in the debate today, Conservatives have long called for the easing of interprovincial trade barriers as essential for boosting economic efficiency, fostering national unity and enhancing competitiveness in the global economy.

One of the most compelling reasons to dismantle interprovincial trade barriers is the potential for significant economic gains. A more integrated domestic market would allow businesses to scale operations more efficiently, access a larger customer base and reduce duplication and costs. Here in Ontario, it is estimated that could mean about $200 billion annually in the province. However, Bill C-5, as mentioned, only takes baby steps and falls short of where we need to be. I am afraid Bill C-5, unfortunately, may not have any impact at all in removing the barriers to interprovincial trade.

The second and probably most controversial part is around natural resource development. Bill C-5 attempts to address the effects of a decade of Liberal mismanagement of the economy by introducing measures to fast-track major projects in Canada. After an admission that the Liberals caused the problem through Liberal laws that have made it impossible to get anything built in this country, the Liberals have turned to allowing certain projects, like those that are politically favoured and lobbied by Liberal insiders, like maybe GC Strategies no doubt, to circumvent the Liberal laws.

Conservatives do agree with the Liberals that it is all their fault that the economy is stalling when it comes to natural resource development, and that their own legislation has hobbled the Canadian economy and has actually put us at risk due to the desires of the administration down south.

We have known about the ongoing dangers of the economic waters that have become unsettled; we have called this out for over 10 years. Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill; Bill C-48, the tanker ban, which will not let Alberta energy leave off our west coast; the emission caps and many more barriers and hurdles to economic growth and expansion have all been put in place by the Liberal government.

Fortunately, we have now gotten to a place where the Prime Minister is saying that if projects are determined to be in the national interest, federal reviews would shift from whether these projects get built to how best to advance them. Apparently, according to the Prime Minister and multiple media sources, this is meant to streamline multiple decision points for federal approval, while minimizing risks of not securing project approval following extensive project risk.

This would create a system where we have more people regulating an industry than we have actually working in it, which is a problem. Again, the Prime Minister has no problem creating more white collar desk workers with government authorities, simply to expand the class of people who will always be loyal to the growth of big government. That is a choke point for innovation and productivity.

Let us be clear: We are not saying, “Let us promote dirty air and dirty water.” We all breathe and eat the same things, and we want the cleanest possible. However, when we have a political class that has no compassion with respect to the impact of its decisions, because government always gets paid and first and never runs out of supply, that is a problem. It is clear that in the legislation, without the removal of key pieces of previous government legislation I mentioned, Bill C-69, Bill C-48, and many more, the regulatory system would continue to choke industry and continue to stifle investment from abroad.

What the Liberals would do, with the piece of legislation before us, is continue to reduce our ability to extract energy and sell it to the world, unless powerful lawyers and lobbyists cozy up to Liberal politicians to get their project fast-tracked. This would lead to more government control. Why is this? It is the same thing the Liberals seemed to love with so-called green energy, more like alternative energy. It is mostly about control. This way, the government would decide who gets the government grants and who would get the fast-track approvals to bypass the legislative regulatory framework.

Of course, it happened in Ontario under Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. We all know about the Green Energy Act, where favoured companies got big contracts and grants and were able to steamroll through legislation already in place that prevented some projects from going forward.

In essence, the government wants people to buy primary services from it with their tax dollars, with all of the grants going to its chosen companies, again, with some link to government. This is how the power broker class does business, and this is why government had no problem pushing TransCanada out of building the Trans Mountain pipeline. The regulatory burden, the framework, was so much that the company had to give up. The only reason the pipeline was able to be completed is that the government took over the project with endless resources at its backing, which is the tax base, the taxpayers of this country. That is why it got completed: through government control.

If we were in some bizarre world, some upside-down universe where there were windmills in abundance and we were getting a lot of our energy from them, and all of a sudden the government found black goop that came from the ground that was able to power cities and make car engines run faster, it would be in favour of it. It would be in favour of drilling, of fracking, because it would then be the government controlling that industry and that kind of energy.

With the free market, though, if we do not like a service being provided, we take our money and go elsewhere, and because of that dynamic, of course we get competition. Somebody is always trying to innovate a product or service to gain a share of the market. That means that people who are not happy with their current offering always find the path of least resistance; they find something better. That is why, with creativity and competition, we get vibrant innovation.

When a government agency or entity monopolizes a service, we get pre-approved innovation; we always get innovation based on what the government has in mind. There is always a conclusion, and the grants are handed out based on what that conclusion is. If we are lucky, we might get some supersmart people running a department, and innovation is able to happen quicker, but on the whole, if it is left up to politicians, unfortunately innovation comes second.

I think government is not good at running much. If it were, if people say, “Well, maybe government is”, I ask what would happen if the government ran the music industry. It would probably stifle all kinds of music that the government does not like.

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

Madam Speaker, I salute all my colleagues in the House.

I find it rather interesting that we are spending a lot of time discussing the substance of the matter and the bill itself, when we are looking at a closure motion. After a little over three weeks in the House, we are already dealing with a gag order.

First, the bill itself is a problem. It is because two bills were merged into one. What the government has done is it has used the old tactic of putting members of Parliament in a tough spot by preventing them from doing their job properly on voting day. This makes a mockery of democracy as well, because there are two parts to the bill.

The first part is not very contentious. When we listen to the comments of members from all parties, it is not very contentious. The first part of the bill seeks to remove federal barriers to interprovincial trade. Basically, what we are doing is telling the federal government to take a step back. Ultimately, what the federal government will do is recognize each province's regulations to ensure the mobility of goods and services. They will say that if the good or service meets a province's regulations, it will be recognized. That is true decentralization. In a way, it is an example of federalism that could work.

However, they then throw part 2 of Bill C‑5 into the mix. The title of this bill is mind-boggling. The Liberals are telling us that this is a bill to create one Canadian economy. We read the bill and then we look at the recent behaviour of the Prime Minister. He is going to meet behind closed doors with the oil industry, which is preparing a list of oil projects and is interested only in oil and almost nothing else. When we read this bill, we see that there may be one Canadian economy, but it is the Alberta economy. There will be only one economy, and it will be Alberta's. The bill will serve the oil industry.

Now the Liberals are promising us free trade before Canada Day. What is mind-boggling, once again, is their definition of free trade, which is essentially that, if the Prime Minister likes a bill, then all other laws can be broken. The Prime Minister can talk to his friends in a certain industry, his friends then manage to convince a minister, who holds some bogus consultation and Ottawa gets its way. I am not saying that is what will happen, but the bill would certainly allow it and that it is dangerous in a democracy.

I personally have a hard time imagining the Prime Minister sitting down with Donald Trump in the south and telling him that our definition of free trade is to let him violate our laws when it suits him. I taught economics. I have spent my entire life studying economics, and I have never seen a definition of free trade that looked like the Prime Minister's definition. It is mind‑boggling.

What does that mean? If we go by the Canadian formula, it means that the definition of free trade would be to tell the Americans that we are renegotiating the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, and that if there are any projects that suit Donald Trump, such as those that violate 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 1994 Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Species at Risk Act or the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, then the Americans can come and violate the Impact Assessment Act, the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations and the wildlife area regulations.

Let us imagine for one second going to the United States and telling them that this is our definition of free trade. Everyone here would cry foul and claim that Canada's sovereignty has been violated, "sovereignty" being a word that the Liberals have suddenly rediscovered.

What is mind‑boggling, once again, is that the Conservatives are supporting closure. Their support for the bill would be understandable.

Why are they supporting this gag order? They are supporting the gag order because they are stuck. They have no leader. For years they have been talking about nothing but oil. Doug Ford stabbed them in the back during the election campaign. They have lost the political machinery. They are also getting stabbed in the back by Danielle Smith, who supports the bill. I would imagine that the Conservatives are telling themselves that they have no leader, that the Prime Minister is popular right now and that people will not actually remember how they are voting because they are too busy having backyard barbeques.

A few days ago, the Conservatives voted to steal $814 million from Quebeckers. There were two votes in one week, and the Conservatives voted with the Liberals against Quebec both times. What the Conservatives do not realize is that they can be in favour of the bill and still vote against the closure motion. They are spending so much time kissing the Liberals' feet that they are going to get a fungal disease, as my colleague from Jonquière would say. They just need to say no to the closure motion and let the committee to do its job.

The member who spoke before me said that this is the Conservatives' best policy option right now. That is why they will pass the bill the way it is. In other words, the Conservatives are voting to short-circuit the committee. They are voting in favour of not having enough time to amend the bill. If the Conservatives have a better definition of what free trade should be, they are now voting to deprive themselves of the opportunity to improve the bill based on their own convictions. That is pathetic. The Liberals were elected, and the Conservatives are rolling over and accepting the outcome. They are telling themselves that people do not want anyone to stand in the way and that the Prime Minister is popular.

What kind of democracy do we have if a gag order is imposed barely three weeks after the House comes back? The Conservatives are criticizing the Liberals because they have not tabled a budget yet. They are up in arms about transparency and accountability, yet here they are giving up the opportunity to do the work in committee. That work would give us a chance to hear from witnesses, and I am not just talking about witnesses from Quebec or about Greenpeace representatives or environmentalists. I am also talking about people who think like the Conservatives and who would try to turn this bill into something I would oppose. The Conservatives see doing that work as obstructing the Prime Minister, who appears to have become Canada's new monarch.

What do Conservative members do for the money they are paid? The 44 members from Quebec here in the House are right to say that there was a fear campaign during the election. They are right to say that Quebeckers elected a lot of Liberals. They are reminding us of that, and we are taking note. We know that; we are intelligent people. Those members were elected to defend Quebeckers. The ball is in their court. Quebec members are telling us that the Quebec government, employers and unions are in favour of their bill. The Liberal parroting has well and truly begun. They kept saying it over and over throughout question period. Well, then, why do they not send the bill to committee? Call the unions, the workers and the employers to appear. If they think that Quebeckers would support this bill in its entirety, why are they not letting those people be called to appear before the committee?

The Prime Minister met with his buddies from the oil and gas industry. A list of projects is on the way this fall. The Liberals still have not tabled a budget, however. Now they tell us that this bill can bypass the democratic process because it was written on the first page of their election platform. Where are the other pages? Where is the necessary budget? An election was called, and we were told that the world had changed but public finances had not. We are being told that we have to create a new Canadian economy with a bill that allows no room for consultations or democratic work. If the Liberals want to table their platform, they should table all of it. They should do all the work, not just half of it.

I see members from Quebec over there at the back, futzing around on their phones and ignoring the debates. They were elected to stand up for Quebec. Now the ball is in their court. They need to prove to us that they are going to stand up for Quebec. So far, 44 Liberal members from Quebec have risen to vote against a unanimous motion by the Quebec National Assembly concerning the issue of one economy, not 13, as defined by the federal government. Is rising to show contempt for all 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec the right way to stand up for Quebec?

So far, these people have shown that they are not doing what they were elected to do. Yes, there are a lot of them. Yes, there are 44 of them. The shame that they must feel for their behaviour so far must be proportional to their numbers in the House.

This closure motion is unacceptable. For the sake of democracy, this bill must be referred to committee.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Let me commend you, Madam Speaker, on making that particular loud Liberal voice quiet. I respect your authority and our colleagues here.

What I would simply say is this. We came here after a hard-fought election to get things done. I may not necessarily agree with everything in Bill C-5, but I do recognize that the regulatory environment the previous government created had grown unwieldy and out of control. We could not build important public infrastructure. That needs to change. That is why I am supporting the bill at second reading.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will say it once again for my Quebec colleague. It is because the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party agitated against the Harper government's reworking of our environmental system to get private sector formations and important infrastructure built. They used it politically to win elections. That is something they chose back then.

By putting forward Bill C-5, the government, under the current Prime Minister, admits it has gone too far. Would I want it to address C-69 and get a system that works well for everyone instead of using this loophole in Bill C-5 to work around the system and create other issues? Absolutely.

Right now, we need to start getting our resources to new markets away from the Americans. That is something the people in Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna have told me. We only have limited time, so I am going to support that as not being my first option, but my second one.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is the arrogance that comes from that other side. They cannot accept a yes.

There was an election. I argued that the Liberals had done such a poor job under Justin Trudeau that they actually wrecked our regulatory environment so that private capital formation was impossible in this country. Now, with this Bill C-5 coming forward, this Liberal government is admitting it was a complete failure. Rather than addressing Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and all the other things that I have mentioned, they are doing a workaround.

They won an election. I want to see projects go forward. This is not my first policy option. With the arrogance that this party is putting out while they do this, they should be mindful that Joe Clark thought he had a majority as well. I look at where that ended up getting him, particularly with a whip who could not count.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in this place and speak on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member of Parliament for Mirabel.

For the record, Bill C-5 is not perfect and, with respect, there are a few concerns I must point out. Let me start with the glaringly obvious. This bill is dubbed as the “one Canadian economy act”, and yet one of the first things we learn is that provinces and territories must provide consent on major projects. In other words, they have a veto. When a veto is provided to 13 different provinces and territories, we are not creating one Canadian economy. If anything, it is completely the opposite. In fact, a cynic might suggest that parts of this bill are designed to fail because the Prime Minister just spent an entire election making big promises that he had no intention of fulfilling. Why did he not get anything built, someone might ask the Prime Minister, who could then reply that there was no agreement on what to build. There, I submit by design, is a huge flaw within this bill.

However, we also know this bill contains other measures, in particular, under “Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada”, taking action or, in this case, legislatively proposing to take action on internal trade barriers, which have long been a passion of mine. I will expand on that point. When I was first elected to this place as someone totally wet behind the ears and a rookie MP, I was fortunate to draw quite highly in the private members' lottery order of precedence. Back in 2011, before the NDP was in power in British Columbia, tourism was not under attack and, indeed, there were a great many Canadian visitors in my riding every summer. Visiting local wineries, even in those days, with over 200 of them, has always been an immensely popular thing to do. Unfortunately, for visiting tourists from other provinces, they could not buy wine at those wineries to take back home with them. Why? Because there was an archaic Prohibition-era federal law that made it illegal to transport wine in person or to have it shipped across the provincial border.

Long-time members of this place might recall that I proposed a private member's bill to remedy this and create true free trade in Canadian wine, or so I had hoped. In those days, the NDP was our official opposition, hard to believe now, I know, which looked to slow down my bill. However, with the help of some Liberals, in particular, former Liberal MP Scott Brison, my bill was accelerated and passed in this House and the other place. Immediately after, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and British Columbia adopted the spirit of my bill; other provinces, not so much. One actually made regulatory changes to block what my bill had achieved.

I mention this because the Prime Minister has, unfortunately, made some outlandish statements, promises really. One was that there will be no interprovincial trade barriers by July 1. He also suggested that the elimination of these internal trade barriers will create another $200 billion of economic activity into our Canadian economy. I am not certain if this is wishful thinking or wilful political misrepresentation as a result of the recent election. Either way, I submit that expectations have been created that Bill C-5 will just not live up to.

This is not to say that the federal government should not do everything it can to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers. To some extent, this part of Bill C‑5 certainly does propose that, and that is why I am prepared to support it.

However, I must also return to the need for consensus found in the other part of Bill C-5. While the Liberal government will allow provinces and territories to veto major projects, we also have to recognize that many interprovincial trade barriers are erected in exactly the same way when one province essentially refuses to come to an agreement with the others. That is what frustrates me about this bill, because it contains a certain amount of double-talk and mixed messages.

I must also point out the obvious. Since 2015, the Liberals have passed several bills, such as Bill C‑69 and Bill C‑48, that have killed many Canadian energy projects. The Liberals know this, of course, but they are too arrogant to admit the obvious.

Fundamentally, the Liberals have created a regulatory environment that is no longer accessible to the private sector. Instead of fixing this, which would be the obvious solution, the Liberals created Bill C‑5, which proposes to circumvent and accelerate these regulatory hurdles through a new political process, subject to everyone's agreement, of course.

The exact mechanism of this political process is an enigma. I would like to point out that, in the past, our former Liberal government kept trying to try to buy jobs in the electric vehicle battery sector. As we now know, many of these investments, as the Liberals call them, completely failed, as is often the case when governments pick winners and losers by using politics as a criterion.

I also have to come back to another point that concerns me.

A few months ago, when campaigning to become the new Liberal leader, our now Prime Minister flew into Kelowna, and while there he told supporters that he would use emergency government powers to build energy projects. A part of that was the “build baby build” thing we heard so much during the election. Of course, in Bill C-5, there is no such language about using emergency government powers to build anything. Instead, what they say here is that there must be consensus, and of course, the NDP Premier of B.C., David Eby, has already said “no”. He will not support any new Canadian pipelines built with Canadian steel that export Canadian oil and gas by getting it to tidewater. He will, however, say yes to B.C. ferries built with Chinese steel by Chinese workers in a Chinese state-owned shipyard.

I mention that last part, because none of the Chinese steel is subject to any industrial carbon tax, unlike here in Canada, where Canadian steel remains subject to the Liberals' industrial carbon tax. On an interview with CTV Atlantic, the Prime Minister was clear that steel made by industry would be targeted for increases to offset his political 180° turn on the consumer carbon tax. This, of course, makes our Canadian steel more expensive and less competitive against Chinese steel with no carbon tax.

If this Liberal government was truly serious about building one Canadian economy, why ignore the fact that Canadian industries need a regulatory environment that is competitive and that creates incentives for investment that would lead to great-paying Canadian jobs?

Bill C‑5 completely misses the mark on those points. We are left with rather modest steps, despite huge promises to the contrary. At least those steps are in the right direction, but this bill could and should have been much more ambitious.

I would like to sincerely thank all members for taking the time to listen to my comments and concerns today.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously I do not agree with my colleague's interpretation of Bill C-5.

In my opinion, this is a very bad bill for all kinds of reasons. The fact that it gives the Prime Minister so much power to define what projects are of national interest bothers me a lot, but that is not what my question for him will be about.

I have always seen the Conservative Party, in this Parliament and in the past 10 years, as the official opposition to the government, opposing the denial of democracy through procedures that could sometimes be difficult to endure. The official opposition made sure that democracy was respected. Now, however, the official opposition, or so-called official opposition, plans to support the government, which means that the only opposition left in the House is coming from the 22 Bloc Québécois members, along with the handful of NDP members and the lone Green Party representative. In practice, that means the government has almost 400 members.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about that. Does he feel that his party has abandoned its role as the official opposition to support a bill that will be used for who knows what, or is he perfectly at ease with the idea of trampling on democracy to pass this bill?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes, she is a saint.

Madam Speaker, I thank her for being there with me and thank my three amazing children. I thank my father Kim, who has taught me a lot along the way, and my late mom Helen, who I know is looking down.

I also thank my amazing election team so much for all their hard work. I have one of the very best teams. Of course, I thank the amazing people of Essex, who have put their trust in me for a third term.

Over the last 10 years, we have been in this House time and time again facing legislation that stems from the Liberal anti-energy agenda, with bills like Bill C-49, Bill C-55 and, most notably, Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” act. Each of these bills sought to increase the regulatory framework around energy infrastructure, slowing and in many cases stopping development. Because of these policies, in January of this year, EnergyNow reported that since 2015, Canada has seen $670 billion in cancelled natural resource projects.

The cancellation of these projects has had devastating impacts on people's lives, with the Montreal Economic Institute projecting that the Liberal oil and gas cap could cause the loss of almost 113,000 jobs by 2040. How striking it is that a political party that has spent the last 10 years throwing up every barrier it could to the construction of new energy infrastructure should now find urgency in passing Bill C-5, a bill that would only slightly lower some of those barriers.

Across Canada, unemployment has risen to 7% according to the latest data released by Statistics Canada. Liberal job-killing policies have caused this crisis, and the refusal to repeal antidevelopment laws will only worsen it. Through this act, the government is telling Canadians that the very laws it has implemented have prevented them from getting jobs, prevented them from putting food on the table and prevented the economic development of our country.

How many more cancelled projects, layoffs and losses of income will we see before we say enough is enough? What we saw consistently from the last government was sweeping plans and grand promises, but no action, and here we go again.

On June 9, the hon. government House leader said, “Bill C-5 is a response to an economic and trade crisis caused by our neighbours to the south.” He is right. Our lack of growth in the energy sector has created a reliance resulting in the United States receiving 96% of our oil exports in 2023. It is now the number one exporter of LNG in the world, a position that should and could have been held by Canada.

If the Liberals had focused on bringing energy products into Canada over the last 10 years instead of halting their development, Canadians would not be losing their jobs and we would not be stuck playing a frantic defence. In the past five years, proposals have come from almost a dozen countries that have wanted to purchase or partner with Canada's LNG production, such as Germany and Poland in 2022, Japan and South Korea in 2023, and Greece, the Philippines and Taiwan in 2024.

The Liberals have had the last 10 years to strengthen our workforce and economic independence and diversify our LNG. Instead, they have left Canada without the option and infrastructure to stand on our own two feet. Canada should be strong and independent, not scrambling to pass legislation because the government realized it has been making serious mistakes.

Bill C-5 promises to speed up the approval process and remove regulatory barriers. If that is the goal, why does the government want to create an entirely new office to oversee each project proposal? This regulatory body has not been identified, may take several months to establish and staff, has an unknown set of criteria by which to assess projects and does not have a designated minister.

As it stands, the building Canada act may at best reduce the number of months that a proposed project would spend before the new regulatory body. To build a major project today, whether it is a pipeline, a mine, an electricity transmission line or any other project, takes several years, and there is good reason for that. Those years are filled with advanced planning, engineering, road evaluation and consultations with landowners and indigenous communities, and then they take several months to build.

Shortening the regulatory reviews, while desirable, will not change that, nor will it prevent groups that oppose such projects from using the courts to hamper and delay their development. Those legal delays will undoubtedly drag on, and we will see exactly what we have seen over the past 10 years: Projects will get cancelled, and hard-working Canadians will lose their livelihoods because of the government's lack of planning.

What happens when the approval of important projects is sped up without proper consideration is that mistakes are made, details are overlooked and corners get cut. TD forecasts that there will be 100,000 job losses by the third quarter of this year. Canada cannot afford this lack of concrete planning or commitments. More cancelled and delayed projects will lead to more Canadians who cannot provide for their families.

Several areas of the bill are vague and noncommittal. For example, Bill C-5 fails to outline clear criteria for what is considered a national interest project, and hidden away at the end of the bill, it states that cabinet has the power to exempt national interest projects from federal laws. The government is handing itself unchecked power to exempt projects it deems important and telling us not to question it, without committing to repealing the laws that have created these problems in the first place.

Additionally, the bill fails to provide concrete timelines for the new and improved approvals process. The Liberals have merely stated that the goal for this bill is to shorten approval timelines from five years to two, but conveniently have not committed to that timeline in the text of the bill.

Not only will this bill make little to no real impact on the timeline of energy infrastructure projects, but the Prime Minister has also said the premiers will have a veto on resource projects and pipelines, which will certainly cause delays and hinder our fight to protect Canadian sovereignty. At best, moving projects from concepts to useful and operating infrastructure will still take several years and billions of dollars. What is the justification for ramming this bill through the House without proper examination and debate to ensure it will have the same benefits the government claims?

This cabinet is effectively the same as the last one. For the past 10 years, it has failed to further Canada's interests, increase Canadian jobs, grow Canada's economy or strengthen Canada's sovereignty. As my colleague, the hon. member for Lakeland, pointed out on May 28, “the Liberals [have] killed 16 major energy projects” in the last five years. She went on to ask why we should trust what they will be able to get done this time around.

If the government wants to enact real change and speed up nation-building projects, then it should repeal its antidevelopment laws that block those projects so we can strengthen the jobs in our oil and gas sector. Furthermore, it should repeal the industrial carbon tax, which is financially strangling our farmers and steel, aluminum and natural gas producers, and causing companies to give up their operations in Canada and move to other countries.

Make no mistake: Conservatives want to see streamlined project development without the piles of red tape that have built up over the past decade. We want to work with the government to make sure that happens. Conservatives have been consistent in our support for natural energy infrastructure, warning the Liberals for years about the economic necessity of these projects. However, that does not mean we should not do our due diligence and take the time to properly consider this legislation.

In its current state, Bill C-5 does not provide real solutions. The crisis caused by the Liberals has robbed Canadians of jobs and stability. Bill C-5 also has no impact on the laws causing these issues, the laws that have given us skyrocketing unemployment and an oil and gas sector that is far behind our competitors'.

Canadians deserve economic stability, but they also deserve transparency and clarity. I challenge the government to repeal its antipipeline and antidevelopment laws and allow the House the time to flesh out the details of this bill to give Canadians concrete timelines and a set list of criteria so it provides real, tangible benefits to Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague. In our opinion, Bill C-5 is a major democratic setback. It is also a step backwards in our environmental protections.

My colleague must know that supporting the closure motion and eventually the bill will not just put this on the Liberals' record; it will also be on the Conservatives' record.

What will Bill C‑5 do? When a major project is proposed and is considered to be in the national interest, some legislation will no longer need to be circumvented, such as the Fisheries Act.

What is the purpose of the Fisheries Act? Section 2.1 of that act states that the purpose of the act is to provide a framework for the management and control of fisheries, as well as the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.

Why does my colleague think that a major project deemed in the national interest must necessarily be carried out at the expense of preserving fish?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has not. Frankly, in his riding, the Filipinos are very upset with him because he made that promise, and he cannot deliver on it.

Conservatives proposed a blue seal program that would allow health care workers to transfer their skills easily across provinces and the establishment of a national competency body, similar to the Red Seal programs for trade. Bill C-5 does not solve any of these issues, even though every politician in the House of Commons knows it was something raised at the doorstep every day during the election.

With my limited time here today, I will just quickly touch upon part 2 of the bill, the building Canada act, which gives the federal government power to designate and fast-track so-called national interest projects. Earlier this morning, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley outlined some of the major flaws with this aspect of the bill, and it largely related to the duty to consult.

British Columbia has a higher proportion of first nations than any other province in the country. First nations in British Columbia want to see major projects built. They want to partner with the federal government, but they see parts of this legislation as a poison pill. It seems to them that the Prime Minister is seeking to usurp their constitutionally given rights to be consulted and to in work with the government for economic reconciliation. The bill could have clarified those points, not in the preamble, but in the body of the text, to give first nations the authority and respect they deserve on major projects going forward. That was not included in the bill.

On major projects, this bill would create a new industry for consultants. Unlike Bill C-69, which has effectively shut down all major resource projects in Canada, this new bill, and I am voting for it, so I am not completely against it, but I am outlining the criticisms, would allow proponents to go directly to the Prime Minister's office without checks and balances. In some cases, sure, that would be okay, but we do not know what the Prime Minister intends, what his criteria are going to be and how he is going to be transparent with all of Canada about what projects he is picking and choosing. I do not want to live in a country where one man gets to pick winners and losers. I want a country where every project proponent sees a pathway to a yes or no answer with a reasonable amount of investment dollars put forward. That is not too much to ask. Other countries with our resources already have similar processes. We used to have it in Canada. We are asking for that to be returned.

As we are in the period of time to debate this bill only today in the House of Commons because of a closure motion, I will have to keep my remarks short. I thank again the people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford for putting their trust in me. It is a true honour.

I look forward to studying this bill in more detail.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I have spoken many times in committee of the whole, while presenting petitions and when asking questions during question period, so far in this parliamentary session, I have not participated in Government Orders. To that end, I would like to thank the voters in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford for giving me an overwhelming majority to represent them in the people's House of Commons in the 45th Parliament.

It is the honour of my professional career to be a hometown boy representing his community. I thank the people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. I thank my family for supporting me. I do not take this job lightly, and I will work tirelessly on their behalf.

This was a different election. To go back a few months, former prime minister Trudeau resigned and the Prime Minister was elected, by Liberal voters, to lead the Liberal Party of Canada. In April, the Liberal Party put forward a platform called “Canada Strong”, a plan to unite, secure, protect, build. The language in this platform is very important. In fact, it led to the Liberals winning the most seats in the House of Commons again. On page one, it states:

America’s unjustified and reckless trade war threatens Canadian jobs, businesses, and our way of life. They are trying to weaken us so they can own us. In the face of this threat, we have a plan to build the strongest economy in the G7.

I outline that point because there was a lot of fear in this election, and rightfully so, about what Canada's relationship would be like with the United States. It came up at the doorstep every day, especially, I will note, among baby boomers. The first page of the Liberal platform goes on to state that a government, led by the current Prime Minister, “has a plan to remove barriers to internal trade.” It goes on to states that the Liberals “will reduce internal trade costs by up to 15% and expand our economy by up to $200 billion, that is up to $5,000 for every Canadian.”

In British Columbia, this was talked about a lot. It was actually a platform commitment to remove internal trade barriers to have free trade in Canada. It was a platform commitment shared with that of the Conservative Party of Canada. This brings us to the fourth sitting week of Parliament since the election, and today we are debating Bill C-5, a free trade and labour mobility act. However, when we look at the bill, there is a problem because the rhetoric in the Liberal platform does not match the reality in the legislation before us today. In fact, the bill would really do nothing to meet the expectations of what Canadians expected from Parliament. I will explain.

Bill C-5 does not address any of the key promises made by the Liberal platform. It would not enforce mutual recognition across provinces and territories. It does not address and would not dismantle provincial trade barriers. It does not include any binding timelines or enforcement mechanisms. It does not establish “buy Canadian” procurement standards. It would not fund or prioritize infrastructure needed for free trade between the provinces and territories. It would not protect or support Canadian industries under foreign trade attacks. It would not create the promised centralized one window for major project approvals. I will note, as a British Columbian, that it would not remove the internal trade barriers between provinces and territories for B.C. farmers, such as our wine growers, to sell their products, barrier-free, across our great nation, which needs to be pointed out.

As I mentioned, we have no idea what the economic consequences of this bill would be. The Liberal platform, as I just outlined, said that, by breaking down internal trade barriers before July 1, there would be massive economic development in Canada and $5,000 more in the pocket of every Canadian. I am stating this point again because I do not believe that is the case. I look forward to the Parliamentary Budget Officer giving a clear breakdown on what the economic positives or negatives of this bill will have on Canada's economy.

Another massive and glaring omission in Bill C-5 is its failure to address another key thing Canadians wanted this election, and that was credential recognition for health care workers. In my province, we are facing a health care crisis. In fact, I receive more calls about hospital closures than almost any other subject in my constituency office. I have had constituents die because the health care centre in one town is too far away from the hospital where they could have received the medical treatment that used to be available in their community. There is broad consensus in Canada that we need credential recognition, that we need to allow the foreign-trained nurses and doctors who we permitted into Canada under our immigration point systems to do exactly what they intended to do when they got to Canada.

Government Priorities

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure: The Liberals' national interest is not in the interest of the planet or future generations. In less than three weeks, they have gone from transport electrification to “Drill, baby, drill”. The Prime Minister has gone from Canada standing strong against Donald Trump to sidelining Quebec and forcing pipelines on it without debate, serious study or expert witnesses explaining the implications of Bill C‑5.

The Prime Minister obviously has no respect for the work of elected officials. He has clearly proven that with his gag order. When will he finally understand that this is a democracy?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-5, the government is not only muzzling the House, it is also muzzling all forms of opposition outside the House in the name of the so-called national interest. It is silencing all those who think that our clean drinking water could be threatened by dirty oil pipelines crossing our lakes and rivers, including the St. Lawrence. It is silencing all those who are concerned about our farmland and forests. It is silencing the people, the Quebec National Assembly and the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement.

Why is it that, for the federal government, building Canada always means weakening Quebec?