Dominic LeBlanc Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-5s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, aims to enhance Canada's economy by reducing interprovincial trade barriers and expediting the approval process for projects deemed to be in the national interest.
Liberal
Conservative
NDP
Bloc
Green
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what my esteemed colleague thinks is the cause of all the broken promises we have seen from the new Liberal government.
Does he think it might have something to do with the ministerial musical chairs we have seen going on in the Liberal cabinet? Who on earth promotes failed team leaders in the real world and expects better results?
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite referred to Canada's “new” government. That has been raised as a point of order.
One Canadian Economy ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate.
The hon. member for Jonquière.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, personally, I do not really understand why my Conservative colleagues are grumbling about Bill C-5.
Earlier, during oral question period, my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said that he thinks it is a Pierre Poilievre bill wearing a red tie. I honestly think that the Conservatives' and Liberals' shared interest in this bill is founded on the sacred bond between those who are pro-oil. The Conservatives should be happy.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Mr. Speaker, as a female MP, I would like to take up the point that my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche made. Not all colleagues elected to the House are exceptional. I think there is a petition going around against one of his colleagues that was launched by a group of women. My colleague is a scholar, he is educated and he knows what “exceptional” means. When he said that, it had an impact on me as a woman. Perhaps he might reconsider his comment.
I would like my colleague to tell me why the Liberals were against the amendments that call for the provinces and Quebec to be consulted.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, this bill is another example of predatory federalism. The government's objective is to have one economy and just one type of assessment, and be able to shove fossil fuel energy projects down Quebec's throat when they do not meet our expectations. It is going to put billions of dollars into that. What the government is doing is ensuring that it has the regulatory environment to complete this project that only responds to the oil and gas industry's needs.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-5, which is a monster of a bill. Unfortunately, I am also a little disappointed in our parliamentary institutions, because our rights as parliamentarians are being trampled on. We have not had much opportunity to discuss this bill, even though it has very wide-ranging implications and far-reaching consequences that will persist for years to come, perhaps even for decades to come.
I want to talk about both the form and the substance of the bill. However, before addressing the substance, I would like to point out that this week, we are witnessing a kind of parliamentary power grab by the Liberal government, which is quite damaging and sad. There are even people, notably those at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, who say that this is a way of circumventing democracy. It is a way of bypassing parliamentarians and bypassing the normal process of studying a bill, which would have allowed us to improve it and determine all its consequences and implications.
For fast-tracked approvals involving huge national infrastructure projects whose content, scope and nature is not entirely clear, we should be sitting down with communities across the country and listening to what they have to say. We should be hearing from experts, scientists and first nations, who have constitutionally recognized rights. We should also be hearing from municipalities, the provinces and Canadians, who have concerns of their own. The government, however, is ramming this bill down our throats in just a few days. One committee meeting was held to discuss and adopt amendments. I have never seen the likes of it. It is Stephen Harper all over again but on steroids. I do not know what has gotten into the Liberals. There was absolutely no national emergency to justify passing this bill so quickly. It opens the door to mistakes that could have serious and very long-term consequences.
This bill has two parts. It so clearly has two parts that I want to congratulate my NDP colleague from Vancouver East on successfully splitting the bill so we can have two votes. Indeed, the two parts cover two completely different subjects. My colleague did some excellent work here, and I want to congratulate her again. The conversation about reducing non-tariff barriers is something we generally agree on, if it can help interprovincial trade and make life easier for our entrepreneurs. Labour mobility is obviously something we have been calling for, as have unions and workers. As we see it, the fact that we can support that part is a good thing.
However, we will still be extremely cautious when the time comes to adopt regulations and see how this is going to be implemented. Reducing non-tariff barriers between the provinces must not trigger a race to the bottom, to lowest-common-denominator standards and regulations that could make certain occupational health and safety situations more dangerous or pose a danger to the public. We agree in principle, but we will have to see how they intend to implement this.
As for the second part of the bill, which is causing a lot of talk in society, we have many concerns about it too. Many people are writing to our offices, and many groups want to contact us. They say we need to proceed with caution, because it is dangerous. The government is putting things in the bill that have never been done before. The consequences could be serious and irreversible. I think the word “irreversible” is especially important. We are stepping onto a slippery slope, and there will be no way to climb back up.
There are a number of problems. Equiterre, a well-known environmental organization in Quebec, wrote us to raise quite a few points that deserved to be debated here. Equiterre says that the bill is vague about definitions, the nature of projects and their impact on communities, and that it is problematic with respect to circumventing environmental statutes and regulations, weakening accountability mechanisms and public participation, potentially infringing on provincial powers, and concentrating powers in the hands of the executive branch, particularly one minister.
That is extremely worrisome and all of those points are problematic for us. The bill contains some extremely vague definitions and I will quote the bill directly so that everyone understands: "The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence".
It seems that, ultimately, what is important to the Liberals is investor confidence. We all agree on the part before that. We in the NDP agree that there should be infrastructure projects. We agree that projects should be carried out and that there should be development. We agree on creating good jobs, especially good unionized jobs. The member for Winnipeg-Centre was able to get an amendment passed to indicate the importance of unionized jobs. That is crucial to us in the NDP.
Many infrastructure projects, especially those relating to transportation, could be very beneficial to various communities. High-speed rail in Canada would be a very good thing. In our opinion, building truly affordable housing, social housing and co-operative housing while we are in the midst of a housing crisis is a project of national interest. There are also the intercity transportation projects in the regions. All those projects would create jobs and help all of our communities.
However, the proposals in this bill are a bit vague and hazy. It is a bit of a catch-all. It gives one minister and one office the authority to unilaterally decide whether projects should be put on the list of projects of national interest.
What are these criteria? The first is to “strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security”. That is fine. The second is to “provide economic or other benefits to Canada”. Putting the term “or other” in a bill means the sky is the limit. The third criterion is to “have a high likelihood of successful execution”. The bill ensures that, once a project makes the list, it is guaranteed to move forward.
The fourth criterion is to “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”. That is interesting. What does advancing the interests of indigenous peoples mean if their rights are not respected? What does advancing their interests mean if we fail to uphold treaties, abide by the Constitution or respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? That is not what was written down, so we have to be extremely cautious. The fifth criterion is to “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada's objectives with respect to climate change”.
I do not see how far-fetched notions like decarbonized oil can be considered clean growth. There is no such thing. Increasing oil and gas production, particularly in the oil sands, is completely incompatible with the Paris Agreement, with meeting our 2030 targets and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. On the contrary, all of the reports from the environment commissioners tell us that we are on the wrong track and will not meet our targets. They are telling us that the Liberals have been dragging their feet for 10 years and have embarked on all sorts of contradictory policies, and as a result, no one takes them seriously.
What must be understood is that we have been told time and again that the minister's power is excessive and discretionary. He relies on the criteria I just read. Once a project is on the list, it is not a matter of if the project will be carried out, but when and how. All of society's checks and balances are muzzled—a reality we are familiar with—and can no longer do anything. By then it is too late, and the game is over. We are stuck with the project, regardless of the consequences, regardless of whether the consultations were done properly or not, regardless of whether the issue was properly studied or not, regardless of whether the groups were heard or not, and regardless of whether the rights of first nations are respected or not. The Liberal Party is giving the government and the minister who will be responsible the power to do this.
In fact, what we are witnessing today are Stephen Harper's and Pierre Poilievre's wildest dreams coming true. What we are seeing today is the Prime Minister of Canada taking his mask off, lifting it over his head, and declaring that he had been a Conservative all along and had simply not told us. That is why we are seeing this Conservative-Liberal alliance in the House right now, not only to pass this dangerous bill but also to do so by imposing closure and trampling on the rights of the members here. We are here to represent the people who elected us. We have serious work to do. What we in the NDP are saying is that the government should have taken the time to do things right. This shoddy work is not going to create jobs; it is going to create lawsuits. It will create litigation. It will end up in the courts, and the only ones who will benefit from the situation are the lawyers who will be raking in their fees.
One Canadian Economy ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have expressed to members of the Bloc that, on April 28, Canadians sent a very strong message, not only to the leader of the Liberal Party but also to all members of the House, and the Prime Minister of Canada has made it very clear that this is in fact a reflection of a very clear mandate that was given to the House.
We appreciate the support coming from the Conservatives, but the Bloc and the New Democrats are completely offside, coming up with issues to filibuster or to not allow the bill to even pass. Fortunately, because of working with the Conservatives, we now will be able to get the bill passed.
Why is the member not respecting the mandate that was actually given to every member of the House to build one strong Canadian economy—
One Canadian Economy ActGovernment Orders
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I respect the mandate that the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie gave me, which is to defend their interests, good jobs, the environment and the rights of indigenous peoples. That is what I am doing here today.
The second thing I would like to say is that this bill does something absolutely unprecedented and extraordinary. It allows projects of national interest to not comply with existing federal laws, especially environmental protection laws.
Équiterre is clear on this:
Schedule 2...identifies which laws the government may choose to ignore, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations and the Marine Mammal Regulations.
Schedule 2 to Bill C‑5 makes it possible to circumvent federal environmental protection laws.
What is going on here?
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Uqaqtittiji, I am glad that my colleague touched on indigenous peoples in his speech as well. I think that by the brilliance of our colleague, the member for Vancouver East, the parties will now be able to vote separately on part 1 and part 2.
I wonder whether the member can share with us what this opens up as an opportunity for the Conservatives who, during the debates, have been touting the protection of indigenous peoples' rights all along. This is their opportunity to act on what they have been debating on, while ensuring that indigenous peoples' rights are protected by voting “no” to part 2 of the bill.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. Advocating for the people of Nunavut, the Inuit, is always her top priority, as is defending the rights of indigenous peoples.
During the short amount of time we had for discussions, the Conservatives touted the importance of reconciliation, working with the indigenous peoples and respecting treaties and their rights. Indeed, we can now all vote together on part 1, which will reduce trade barriers between the provinces and stimulate the economy and labour mobility.
If the Conservatives want to prove that they are consistent and willing to put their money where their mouths are, they now have the opportunity to keep part 1 and move forward. Then they can vote against part 2 and come back here for a real discussion, a real study and a real debate with parliamentarians, as well as with first nations, experts and environmental groups.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, let me get this right. The New Democrats, the seven independent members, have decided that they are going to vote in favour of part 1, but they are in opposition to projects deemed to be in the national best interest, even though there are all sorts of safeguards in play to protect things such as indigenous consultations and rights, and so forth.
Let us be very clear that the New Democrats are becoming more and more irrelevant, for the simple fact that they are not putting Canadians first—
One Canadian Economy ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order. There is a little noise coming from all sides of the House.
The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has the floor.